Nancy Guthrie Mystery: 8 Disturbing Theories About Her Disappearance

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: Drop Dead Serious With Ashleigh Banfield

Episode: Nancy Guthrie Mystery – 8 Disturbing Theories About Her Disappearance

Release Date: March 6, 2026
Host: Ashleigh Banfield

Episode Overview

In this episode, Ashleigh Banfield convenes a panel of leading criminal justice experts to dissect and debate the baffling disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, mother of television personality Savannah Guthrie, now unsolved for 33 days. Leveraging decades of investigative and prosecutorial experience, Banfield and her guests explore eight competing theories behind the crime—ranging from bungled burglary to targeted abduction—and weigh in on what likely happened based on the known evidence, police activity, and behavioral clues. The tone is candid, empathetic, and analytical, driven by Banfield’s relentless pursuit of the truth and her trademark irreverent, no-nonsense style.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Latest Updates in the Guthrie Case

• Savannah Guthrie's Return: Savannah visited the Today show studio in New York, emotional but resolute. Shared her feelings with colleagues:

  “I wanted you to know that I’m still standing and I still have hope … I don't know what version of me that will be, but it will be. I am holding on to my faith.” – Savannah Guthrie [03:00]

• Law Enforcement Activity: Two distinct teams of FBI agents canvassed Nancy Guthrie’s neighborhood; reports highlighted a shift in focus and resources:

  “It appears that today two different sets of FBI agents were in Nancy Guthrie’s neighborhood. So who could they be?” – Ashleigh Banfield [05:52]

• Tip Activity Tapering: Media coverage dropped following restrictive measures by the Pima County Sheriff, which may have contributed to fewer new leads.

---

2. Expert Theories: What Happened to Nancy Guthrie?

A. The Bungled Burglary Theory

Guest: Casey Jordan (criminologist, behavioral analyst, attorney)

• Theory: An amateur burglar unexpectedly encountered Nancy, something went wrong, and in a panic, removed her from the house to avoid detection.

• Observations:

  • Perpetrator appeared bumbling and unsophisticated in porch camera footage.
  • Possible “beginner’s luck” in escaping detection; absence of sophisticated burglary tools or criminal record.
  • “Little old lady houses” are common burglary targets for valuable, easily carried goods.
  • No evidence for a professionally orchestrated kidnapping for ransom.

• Notable Quote:

  “This is the work of an amateur... I call it beginner’s luck. We don’t have him in the DNA database… This is somebody who wanted to get into that house. And I hate to say this, but little old lady houses are supreme targets for burglars…” – Casey Jordan [12:37]

• On Police Holdback:

  “If these things were stolen, you would think right away they would get out to all the pawn shops... I think that would be a holdback.” – Casey Jordan [16:47]

Timestamp: 12:21 – 22:42

---

B. The Insider Threat / Familiar Perpetrator Theory

Guest: Spencer Courson (threat management expert, former Army Ranger, author)

• Theory: Someone known to Nancy, possibly with a grievance, lost control during an emotional confrontation, leading to violence and her disappearance.
• Key Points:
  • Statistically, missing elderly cases often involve a familiar party.
  • Suggests escalation due to emotional volatility—similar to domestic violence cases.
  • “Insider threat” could include friends, family, or close acquaintances—but not random contractors.
• Notable Quote:

  “If you go to someone and you’re not, you have it all planned out… As soon as an unforeseen variable is introduced, you get really panicked.” – Spencer Courson [25:11]
  “If someone comes during the day, they're coming for your stuff. If they come at night, they're coming for you.” – Spencer Courson [29:20]

Timestamp: 23:45 – 29:29

---

C. The Fixated Stranger / Stalker Theory

Guest: Jim Clemente (retired FBI Special Agent, profiler, former prosecutor)

• Theory: A male in his 30s–40s with a possible unhealthy fixation on Savannah or Nancy targeted her after perceiving vulnerability, acting out of obsession or perceived connection.
• Highlights:
  • Behavioral change and high stress indicators likely in perpetrator post-abduction.
  • Ransom letters may indicate desire for attention, not profit.
  • If the intent was burglary or revenge (not fixation/kidnap), there’d be no need to move Nancy; the act of taking her greatly heightened the risk.
• Notable Quote:

  “Seeing him in the video, we're talking probably somebody who's not in his 50s or 60s… But probably in his 30s or 40s… There's some reason why he felt she was alone and vulnerable at that particular time.” – Jim Clemente [31:00]
  “Taking her away from the home is the highest risk behavior he could have done… That brings the crime with him.” – Jim Clemente [38:51]

Timestamp: 29:58 – 45:21

---

D. The Revenge Against Savannah Theory

Guest: Tracy Walder (retired CIA and FBI Agent)

• Theory: Nancy was targeted as the most vulnerable way for a stalker or person with a vendetta against Savannah to cause pain, exacting revenge against the anchor indirectly.
• Key Insights:
  • Nancy’s personal information was accessible online prior to the incident.
  • Drawing on her own experiences of being stalked, Walder found this plausible.
  • Believes Nancy was likely taken alive but may not have survived long due to her frailty and need for medication.
• Notable Quote:

  “I think this is someone… upset with her [Savannah], and as a result, knew it might be difficult to get directly to her… so picked… probably the most vulnerable person... her mother...” – Tracy Walder [45:55]
  “I do believe Nancy was the target… I do believe she was targeted.” – Tracy Walder [53:44]

Timestamp: 45:55 – 55:24

---

E. The Sexually Motivated and “Kit” Offender Theory

Guest: Matt Murphy (former homicide prosecutor)

• Theory: Perpetrator intended violence; possibly sexual in nature. Suggests premeditation, indicated by perpetrator bringing a “kit” (possibly with a tarp) for moving the body.
• Highlights:
  • Believes Nancy was likely killed inside the house, then removed.
  • Ransom communications are dismissed as fraudulent.
  • Low confidence in the investigation’s procedural integrity and local prosecution.
• Notable Quote:

  “When you see blood like that on the outside… there was violence visited upon that poor woman inside her house... When you look at that video, that guy was there with a plan… I think there was a tarp in that backpack.” – Matt Murphy [56:13]
  “Moving the body exponentially increases the risk; it is incredibly unusual. However, she’s not there and they moved the body.” – Matt Murphy [59:22]

Timestamp: 56:13 – 66:16

---

F. The For-Hire “Hit” Theory

Guest: Maureen O’Connell (retired FBI Special Agent)

• Theory: The plan may have been a hit—an intentional murder rather than kidnapping or burglary.
• Key Points:
  • The act of taking Nancy alive was illogical for all but a hit scenario.
  • Suggests perpetrator used a tarp for removal, based on blood patterns and the manner of egress.
  • Still hopeful the case will be solved with modern forensic technology.
• Notable Quote:

  “The whole thing never really seemed to me to be about a kidnapping… I just can’t see the upside of that… I think it was a hit.” – Maureen O’Connell [69:07]

Timestamp: 66:42 – 73:40

---

G. The Sophisticated but Staged Disappearance Theory

Guest: Douglas McGregor (geographic profiler, forensic intelligence analyst)

• Theory: Planned abduction, possibly staged to look amateurish/rushed; perpetrator was familiar with Nancy and/or the property.
• Details:
  • Entry at 2am not typical for a burglary; evidence of casing in advance.
  • Perpetrator took significant risks—suggests the target was extremely important.
• Notable Quote:

  “It was likely, in my opinion, a planned abduction… 2am is not the typical time for a burglary.” – Douglas McGregor [74:23]

Timestamp: 74:23 – 80:45

---

H. The Staged “Ransom” (Misdirection for Personal Motive) Theory

Guest: Paul Holes (renowned cold case investigator)

• Theory: The abduction/kidnapping narrative was staged to camouflage a personal, possibly violent motivation; actual interaction may have occurred inside the home before the staged scene.
• Key Points:
  • The perpetrator wanted to be seen on camera in costume, building a ransom narrative.
  • Offender may have planned the staging because of some personal connection/fear of being suspected.
  • Staging often signals the offender knows they’re in the victim’s orbit.
• Notable Quote:

  “He was there to harm Nancy and he preplanned this crime to set it up to look like it’s this abduction for ransom… That’s because the offender, in his mind, thinks he is likely going to be a suspect.” – Paul Holes [81:26 & 86:37]
  “If he truly is abducting Nancy for ransom, he’s doing it all wrong… I think he’s actually a more sophisticated offender who went in to harm Nancy. Now…he’s having to dynamically adjust his plans as now the media attention is going on.” – Paul Holes [91:46]

Timestamp: 81:26 – 93:51

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the toll to the Guthrie family:

  “There is a special hell for never knowing what happened. And I don’t want Savannah or the Guthrie family to go through that.” – Casey Jordan [22:47]

• On emotional volatility in familiar violence:

  “Everyone has a plan until you get punched in the face.” – Host quoting Mike Tyson, echoed by Spencer Courson [27:45]

• On cover-ups and evidence:

  “He exposed his mouth, which meant he’s breathing his DNA into the crime scene… All those hairs… could have fallen out at the crime scene.” – Jim Clemente [41:37]

• On the limitations of known information:

  “We probably have 15% or less of what the law enforcement agencies have on hand right now.” – Maureen O’Connell [69:40]

---

Timeline – Timestamps for Important Segments

| Timestamp | Segment/Guest | Key Topics | |-----------|------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------| | 00:30–05:25 | Banfield introduction & case update | Savannah Guthrie’s statement, law enforcement activity | | 12:21–22:42 | Casey Jordan (Criminologist) | Bungled burglary theory, why police might withhold details, family’s trauma | | 23:45–29:29 | Spencer Courson (Threat Management) | Insider/familiar threat, emotional volatility crimes | | 29:58–45:21 | Jim Clemente (FBI Profiling) | Fixation/stalker theory, analysis of ransom notes | | 45:55–55:24 | Tracy Walder (CIA/FBI) | Revenge on Savannah, victim targeting, blood evidence | | 56:13–66:16 | Matt Murphy (Homicide Prosecutor) | Sexual motivation, kit offender, critique of investigation | | 66:42–73:40 | Maureen O’Connell (FBI) | Possibility of a hit, analysis of physical/blood evidence | | 74:23–80:45 | Douglas McGregor (Profiler) | Abduction planning, risk factors, targeting | | 81:26–93:51 | Paul Holes (Cold Case Investigator, Golden State Killer) | Sophisticated offender, planned staging, scenario speculation |

---

Conclusion

Ashleigh Banfield delivers a riveting, multilayered exploration of the Nancy Guthrie case through interviews with top-tier experts from across the investigative spectrum. The episode avoids sensationalism, focusing instead on careful, compassionate, and evidence-based theorizing. While each expert offers a distinctive hypothesis—from bungled burglary to calculated revenge and manufactured staging—they frequently converge on three themes: the crime was high risk, poorly executed or deliberately made to look that way, and likely involved some connection, however distant, to Nancy (or Savannah) Guthrie.

Throughout, Banfield maintains focus on the devastating emotional impact for Savannah’s family and the public’s desire for answers, punctuating the discussion with hope that “the truth isn’t just serious, it’s drop dead serious.”

---

Recommended Action:
If you have any information related to Nancy Guthrie's disappearance, contact the FBI tip line: 1-800-CALL-FBI.

---

Transcript

[Ashley Banfield]

If you're a maintenance supervisor at a manufacturing facility and your machinery isn't working right, Grainger knows you need to understand what's wrong as soon as possible. So when a conveyor motor falters, Grainger offers diagnostic tools like calibration kits and multimeters to help you identify and fix the problem. With Grainger, you can be confident you have everything you need to keep your facility running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER clickgrainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[Host/Interviewer]

Did you know you can save up to 70% on the best brands just by shopping at from rebel.com we're talking about strollers, car seats, high chairs, espresso machines, cookware, everything you need for way less. Here's how it works. Every single day, Rebel drops thousands of new products on the site for up to 70% off. It is a constant stream of endless deals from top brands like Uppababy, Noona, Baby Bjorn, Breville, Nespresso, Kitchenaid, Le Creuset, and more. But you have to act fast because every deal is one of a kind. So if you see something you love, make sure you add to cart fast. So stop paying full price when you don't have to. Whether it's baby gear, kitchen upgrades, or a treasure for your home you didn't know you needed, REBBL has it for way less. Up to 70% less. Shop from rebel.com and save big. Hey, everyone, I'm Ashley Banfield and this is drop dead serious. It is Thursday, March 5, which means it is day 33 in the Nancy Guthrie investigation. And let me tell you, if there is one question that I get asked all the time when I'm out and about, it's what do you think happened? And I know it's a big question for you. It's a big question for all of us. So today I actually put together all of the top experts that I know in the business of investigations, homicide detectives, criminal investigators, FBI profilers, you name it. And I asked them what they think based on the information they know. And it is a cornucopia of different concepts of what might have happened to Nancy Guthrie, what might have happened in that house, who might have done this, what kind of person, and how they might have actually executed this crime. It's fascinating to hear them all. And let me tell you, Spencer Courson, I've got Jim Clementi, I've got Tracy Wilder, I've got Casey Jordan, Maureen O', Connell, Douglas McGregor, Paul Holes, all the good ones. So you're in for a treat. Do me a huge favor. I appreciate you being here. Can you hit subscribe? It really does me a huge solid. And I thank you if you already have, and I thank you if you've become a member as well. You're a special part of this group, this little group that we've gotten together. And thank you so much for your support. So let me just start with what happened today before I get into all of these incredible experts and their theories of what might have happened to Nancy Guthrie. For starters, Savannah went back to New York and she paid a visit to the Today show studios today. She didn't go on air. I wouldn't expect that for a while. But she did visit with her colleagues in the studio. And actually TMZ was outside the windows and they got, like, images of Savannah, you know, giving Hoda a big hug and her colleagues there. And it was. And you can see Savannah's in, you know, casual attire. She was not planning to be seen publicly, you know, on camera or otherwise. And so it was just those who were standing outside the window who saw this. But she was very, you know, emotional as she was hugging and, you know, greeting all of her colleagues there who have not seen her for over five weeks. Right. The whole Olympics went on without her. They had to go about their business. Hoda came back to host for her. So I can tell you that this is what a Today show spokesperson said about the visit, and I will quote them directly. Savannah Guthrie stopped by the studio this morning to be with and thank her Today colleagues. While she plans to return to the show on air, she remains focused right now, supporting her family and working to help bring Nancy home. And then later, NBC quoted what Savannah actually said to her colleagues. And let me read exactly what NBC put out. And this is Savannah apparently speaking. Quote, I wanted you to know that I'm still standing and I still have hope and I'm still me. And I don't know what version of me that will be, but it will be. I am holding on to my faith. Savannah continues. I still believe. And as my mom would say, where else would I go? I have every intention of coming back, Savannah continues. According to NBC. I don't know how to come back, but I don't know how not to. You're my family, and I would like to try. It's just heart wrenching if you think of it, because, of course, Savannah has a new normal, right? This horrible crime has been visited upon her and her family. And I mean, anybody who's been through Enormous trauma. And I can tell you from experience, because I lived through 9, 11, and I was actually victimized down at the. At the World Trade Center. You have to return to your normal. It doesn't feel the same.

[Casey Jordan]

It's.

[Host/Interviewer]

It's weird. But you need it. You need some semblance of your old normal back in your new normal. And I take that to be what Savannah is saying to her colleagues. I don't know what version of me I'm going to be. I don't know what, you know, it's going to look like when I come back, but I have to try. And that makes perfect sense. And Savannah has children, young children, and she's got a husband and she's got a life in New York. And, and so trying to. To bring back that part of her world into her life. I can completely understand what she's trying to say and how difficult that it. It just might be. As far as what's happening in Nancy Guthrie's neighborhood. There was activity in the neighborhood. In fact, there was law enforcement today. So according to Fox, three investigators were seen canvassing the area, and one man was seen wearing a shirt that said FBI police. An interesting thing. I usually see FBI jackets that just say FBI or jackets that just say police. I don't know that I've seen FBI police before, but that is what Michael Ruiz reports. And we're seeing images that Michael Ruiz's team was able to get of these folks. They appeared to be going door to door and knocking on homes in Nancy's neighborhood and speaking with the neighbors. So here's why this is significant and why it may be different than the images we've seen before and the activity that we've seen before that was just like this. Because, look, Nancy Guthrie's neighbors, they have been canvassed, right? In the early days, they have been canvassed. But this might be different, and here's why. Mike Ruiz from Fox Digital reports this. Pima County Sheriff's Department defers comment to the FBI on today's activity in Nancy Guthrie's neighborhood. Which says to me, and probably says to you, they were not from the sheriff's department. They were probably FBI. Maybe fresh eyes, maybe just a continuation of the FBI's investigation. But this was not Pima county activity. So fascinating. And then I can tell you this. Brian Enten from News Nation saw different activity later in the day and said this. FBI agents return back to Nancy Guthrie's neighborhood. But the agents that he's photographing are different. They're different people. So it appears that today two different sets of FBI agents were in Nancy Guthrie's neighborhood. So who could they be? Well, if you take Brian's reporting from Yesterday, which was March 4th, this is what Brian said, the quote he got from the Pima county sheriff's department as part of the refocusing of resources, we have learned. This is Brian saying, we have learned that four detectives and a sergeant from the Pima county sheriff's office have been assigned to a task force with the FBI to continue investigating Nancy Guthrie's disappearance. The task force will be stationed at the FBI office in Tucson. Now, Brian says this is a change from virtually all detectives working in the case. Brian says that he was told this, quote is a change from virtually all detectives working in the case. So perhaps what you saw today is this task force with whatever information these four detectives and the sergeant from Pima county have imparted on these FBI agents, It's hard to say what exactly they were doing, but clearly what's fascinating is that the bulk of the FBI officers who were working on this case moved back to the. The Phoenix headquarters at the FBI, but there were some people who stayed with a footprint. And now you're learning that this task force is. Is operating out of the Tucson field office. So. Interesting. Sadly, Matt Finn from fox also reports that the FBI, quote, tells me tips have tapered in the Nancy Guthrie investigation, and the FBI is still, quote, asking anyone with leads or information to call the FBI tip line at 1-800-call-FBI. 1-800-call FBI is key here because they're working out of that FBI office. I don't know how many officers they have there, but they only have five from the Pima county sheriff's department. And it is sad to hear that the tips have tapered. Here's one guess I have. The media was basically shooed away and they left on mass on the exact day that the Pima county sheriff's department decided to put in these extremely oppressive parking restrictions, which basically went for, you know, blocks and blocks, long blocks, by the way, I should tell you, in this particular neighborhood of dusty desert road. So if you want to cover this story, you got to pack in and hike in on a very hot desert road all the way into Nancy Guthrie's neighborhood. And then have with you everything you need for the day. Shelter, water, power, reporting gear, cameras, all the rest, very difficult work, which is maybe coincidental as to why virtually everybody disappeared that day. The sheriff made it impossible, made it next to impossible to cover this story. And wouldn't you know, it just A few days later, the FBI says tips have tapered. Thanks, Sheriff. Now, clearly, something else happened on Saturday. America attacked Iran. And the headlines just blew up for the most part on that massive story, that international story. And so the Nancy Guthrie story just hasn't been as prevalent. That coupled with the fact that there's basically no reporting, virtually no reporting, Enten is still there. Brian Enten is still there. Fox is still there, and they've got coverage, but generally speaking, the headlines just diminished. Okay? And so, yeah, when the headlines diminish, guess what else diminishes? The tips. 1-800-call FBI. We'll keep it going. 1-800-call-FBI if you know anything. All right, so to the episode that I wanted to bring you today, which is so incredibly smart in terms of what you're about to hear from the experts that I've compiled, basically all of the people who do this for a living in various different aspects of criminal justice, from profiling to, you know, FBI special agents to homicide detectives, to everybody who works in the business of trying to solve crimes like this, they are giving their take on what they think happened. And I want to start with Casey Jordan, with whom I have worked for decades on the air. Casey Jordan is an expert criminologist. She's a behavioral analyst, and she's also a lawyer. So here's my conversation with Casey about what she thinks might have happened in this crime. Casey, based on what we know, and of course, acknowledging what we don't know, what do you think happened?

[Casey Jordan]

Listen, our theories have gone up and down like a roller coaster over the last five weeks. As all of this information, some of it fresh, some of it contradictory, some of it walking back, I mean, it really has been. I mean, everyone's like, don't speculate. But that's exactly what we do. If you're involved in criminology, investigative profiling, that is what we do. And the speculation on what kind of person we're dealing with changes as the evidence is presented to us. So my opinion about what happened has changed over the last few weeks. But at this juncture, as we enter week five and everything has cooled off in the last two weeks with almost nothing new under the sun, I really do believe that this is a bungled burglary. And remember, the criminal law definition of burglary is the breaking and entering with the intent to commit a felony. That felony could be kidnapping, it could be sexual assault, it could be grand larceny or theft. So what? The intent of the person breaking in is unknown to us, but it was the guy on the porch. And that footage of him walking like a bumbling idiot and picking up the flowers and jamming them in the camera and walking back off the porch. Sometimes he has his backpack, sometimes he doesn't. I really do think that this is the work of an amateur. And everyone's like, no, no, no. Then how could he have gotten away with it? That's how. Because I call it beginner's luck. We don't have him in the DNA database. We don't have him with a criminal record that would lead us to him. This is somebody who. Who wanted to get into that house. And I hate to say this, but little old lady houses are supreme targets for burglars because little old ladies tend to have a ton of jewelry, lots of gold and silver, lots of sterling. No, they don't have electronics and stuff. They have valuable things that can fit in a backpack, and you can take them with you. So we have the idea that this person may have cased the joint. Listen, maybe he saw Nancy leaving the Uber and hadn't realized she had come home. Who knows how long he had been watching that house? But I'm pretty sure that he knew the little old lady lived there once he got inside. The question is, was he expecting Nancy to be in there or not? Here is my true belief. This was not an intended kidnapping. Why? Because I actually don't even think the intruder knew who Nancy Guthrie was. That she is the mother of Savannah Guthrie. If we had a kidnapping for profit, which we operated from the beginning as it's got to be, because we had all of those communications to TMZ in the local news station asking for the Bitcoin. 4 million, 6 million. They were all a hoax, I believe, and I think the police are convinced

[Host/Interviewer]

at this point as well.

[Casey Jordan]

But if you want to kidnap Savannah Guthrie's mother for profit, you come in like ninjas, and there's going to be more than one of you. You have a stealthy car that's never going to be picked up on a camera. You're in, you're out. You can disarm those cameras so that they're not even in the back archives of the Google Nest system. You spray paint the lens, you come in, out, gone. Okay.

[Host/Interviewer]

Or you use a jammer, which means it doesn't even see you approach.

[Casey Jordan]

Exactly. But let's say you use a jammer and you still come and you spray paint the lens. You don't go pick flowers and jam them in the camera. I mean, that's absurd. I actually Ashley, do think that this is the work of one person? I know that's the more difficult way to do it, but we have 42 minutes, give or take, from the time that that signal was cut to the time that we have that person.

[Host/Interviewer]

The pacemaker separating. Yeah.

[Casey Jordan]

Pacemaker separating, 42 minutes. That is a bungling burglar. That is somebody who's probably been going through the house. Remember Nancy wore hearing aids, took them out at night. He could have been in there with the pen light in his mouth, picking and choosing and going through her. Her jewelry box and stuffing his backpack with candlesticks. You know, I'm making this up.

[Host/Interviewer]

Would they let us know, though, by now? Would the police say this was a robbery? Things were stolen. Look for these items. I mean, if these things were stolen, you would think that right away they would get out to all the pawn shops, they would get out to fencing and they would ask the public, if you see these items, let me know who it is.

[Casey Jordan]

I think that that would be a holdback. I really do. Not to say they're not checking pawn shops, but first and foremost, the family has to know what's missing.

[Host/Interviewer]

This is the story of the 1. As a procurement manager for a hospital system, she keeps every facility in her network stocked and ready. That's why she counts on Grainger to be her single source for thousands of products, from disinfectants to lighting, air filters and more. And with fast, dependable delivery, Grainger helps her keep every facility stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click granger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[Ashley Banfield]

This is the story of the 1. As a maintenance tech at a university, he knows ordering from multiple suppliers takes time away from keeping their original arena up and running. That's why he counts on Grainger to get everything he needs, from lighting and H vac parts to plumbing supplies, all in one place. And with fast, dependable delivery, he's stocked and ready for the next tip off. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click granger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[Host/Interviewer]

This is the story of the 1. As a procurement manager for a hospital system, she keeps every facility in her network stocked and ready to that's why she counts on Grainger to be her single source for thousands of products, from disinfectants to lighting, air filters and more. And with fast, dependable delivery, Grainger helps her keep every facility stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[Ashley Banfield]

This is the story of the 1. As a maintenance tech at a university, he knows ordering from multiple suppliers takes time away from keeping their arena and up and running. That's why he counts on Grainger to get everything he needs, from lighting and H vac parts to plumbing supplies, all in one place. And with fast, dependable delivery, he's stocked and ready for the next tip off. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click granger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[Casey Jordan]

Do you know every piece of jewelry in your mother's jewelry box?

[Host/Interviewer]

Good point.

[Casey Jordan]

Do you know if the silver candlesticks are missing? Do you know where she keeps the coin collection? Listen, I have had burglaries at my home, and just getting the inventory together for me, the owner of the stuff that was stolen is a monumental task. Nobody I know would be able to tell you what was in my house and what wasn't in my house.

[Host/Interviewer]

So let me ask you this. Let me ask you this. If you think this is a burglary for the purpose of committing the felony of thievery and that something went wrong, what do you think would have gone wrong? Given that Nancy had the powerful hearing aids, and when you take them out at night to sleep, you don't hear anything, you can't be disturbed.

[Casey Jordan]

Oh, no, you can see a flashlight flashing in your bedroom. You can, you know, what if all of a sudden a chair tips over? What if a table tips over? There can be vibrations and light. Maybe he comes in and turns the light on and that wakes her up. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Nancy was alerted, awakened, maybe shaken awake, maybe heard something, saw something, maybe got up to go to the bathroom or get a glass of water and saw somebody rifling through her dining room candlesticks.

[Host/Interviewer]

You just gave me an idea, maybe shaken away. Give me those rings that you're wearing.

[Casey Jordan]

Yeah, absolutely.

[Host/Interviewer]

Thought of that.

[Casey Jordan]

The bottom line is that she is feisty. She may be older and have some health issues, but everyone agrees Nancy is feisty. She's not, you know, she's not going to do anything stupid, but in a scuffle, she could have ripped his mask off, maybe recognized him as somebody who worked for her 10 years ago, maybe scratched him, had the DNA under her fingernails. Hey, maybe she fell and hit her head, went unconscious. Maybe it was purely an accident. Maybe she had a heart attack and this bumbling burglar is like, oh, my God, no one will Ever believe that I didn't kill her? That this was an accident? I'm not going down for this. I just came here for some gold and silver. What if he tried to give her mouth to mouth? What if she clawed at him and got DNA under her fingernails? He is going to take that body, Nancy, dead or alive, out of the house to maximize his chances of never getting caught. The blood droplets, probably from a bloody nose. It's not gushing blood. It's not from a stabbing. We would know that. If she had been shot or stabbed. It. We would know that or.

[Host/Interviewer]

Listen, I always say this, that my. My mom is 87 and if she bumps into something, she bleeds her. Her skin will just tear. It's so, so delicate. So that could have been.

[Casey Jordan]

Yeah, literally, you can pull somebody up by their wrists and their skin will split, you know.

[Host/Interviewer]

And the blood thinners happened with my dad. Yep. Yep. The blood thinners means it's just. It's a bloodbath. Yeah, a lot of.

[Casey Jordan]

But it's.

[Host/Interviewer]

It's not.

[Casey Jordan]

But it's not the kind of blood that's fatal. It's just the kind of blood that will leave droplets through the house and out on the porch. I don't know whether she walked out of her own volition. Seems unlikely, but again, the camera was cut by 2:28 in the morning. We don't know if she was taken or 212. I think 212. Carried out. Taken out. Listen, do not underestimate the ability of a sole perpetrator under the influence of a dream, adrenaline and panic to A, do really stupid things and B, to have superhuman strength. So everyone's like, this has to be the work of many people. Well, if it were incredibly organized and well planned and a ninja kidnapping, I would say, of course there was more than one person. But I think that the bumbling idiot we see on that porch is probably your sole perpetrator and he took her from the house to minimize his chances of getting caught. And not even a million dollars on the table is going to solve this if that's the case.

[Host/Interviewer]

Casey Jordan. It's why I call you. You're just so skilled at what you do. Thank you for this.

[Casey Jordan]

It's all just speculation. I just want to. You know again. We both know Savannah. We want her mother to be found alive, but to be returned, recovered, just so we have answers. There is a special hell for never knowing what happened. And I don't want Savannah or the Guthrie family to go through that. So let's get her.

[Host/Interviewer]

I Like the way you think, though, that what you're doing and you say it's pure speculation, but that's literally what the professionals are doing right now. They are gaming out every possibility and then going down those rabbit holes. So thank you for helping us to understand a little bit more about what's actually happening. Yeah, exactly. Thanks, Casey.

[Casey Jordan]

Great to be here, Ashley.

[Host/Interviewer]

My thanks to Casey Jordan. Spencer Courson. He is a former U.S. army Ranger and Special Deputy U.S. marshal. He is a threat management expert. He wrote the book the Safety Trap and he knows a lot about crimes like this and bad guys. Here's my conversation with Spencer. So, Spencer, what do you think happened here?

[Ashley Banfield]

I went back and looked at all my notes and I kind of went back to first principles and when there's anytime there's a missing elderly person, number one, most probable medical or cognitive incident, we've already ruled that out. Number two is someone who is familiar with the individual. That's statistically the next most likely thing. And then third, at a very low percentage is the stranger on stranger crime. I think there are a lot of indicators that still outline that. Second, someone who's familiar with Nancy, someone who knew her, that is most likely. That is, I believe to be the most likely outcome of this. And I think it just might at this point be that they have a pretty good idea of what happened. They're just not able to prove it yet.

[Host/Interviewer]

So given the facts that we know, which, you know, agreed are limited because they don't release all the investigative details. But we've had sources that have said blood droplets inside the house, back door wide open. Blood droplets that continue. We've seen with our own eyes down the front walk.

[Ashley Banfield]

No sign of forced entry.

[Host/Interviewer]

Well, I have. My source said sign of forced entry and that back door is wide open. And then the sheriff said she was taken from her bed in the middle of the night. Then he backtracked it. But then Savannah came out with an Instagram saying she was taken from her bed in the dark of night. So what do you think may have happened in that house?

[Ashley Banfield]

If you are looking at a motive methodology or a motive framework of need, greed, profit and revenge, all four of those things are emotionally volatile. And so if you go to someone and you're not, you know, you have it all planned out, how it's going to go exactly like this. And we've all been in those situations where I'm going to go over and I'm going to say this and then they're going to say that and I'm going to say this. And you know, you are so emotional in that construction that as soon as an unforeseen variable is introduced, you get really panicked. We see this in domestic violence encounters, especially where the abuser is so used to having control that as soon as the victim is saying that they're going to leave, that offender goes up and right in their application of violence just to reinstitute control. And that can be the most lethal time in an intimate partner violence setting. It's the same thing in familiar dynamics. When you have this grievance and you have this ideation that you can do something about it, and then that ideation is starting to fail in front of your eyes. You can push someone and they can fall and hit their head, you can hit them and not intend to hit them that hard. There's a million things that can happen, and then you go into panic mode. And whether you are supposed to be there and the DNA that they found you can write off as being

[Matt Murphy]

valid.

[Host/Interviewer]

Are you saying that you think it might have been a grievance that resulted in, say, a push and an accident and something was unforeseen?

[Ashley Banfield]

Yes. I do not think. My instinct, my background and what I know about this case basically demonstrates to me that if you're going to take someone, like if you're going to take someone, the best place to take them is not at home. The best place to take them is in transit. This is why, like, ambush is in the military. We don't attack the base. We attack them when they're going from one base to another base. So if you're going to try to abduct someone in transit, is the best place to do it not at home, because you can control more of the environment, of the when and the how, and you have time to plan if you're getting a pattern of life in place.

[Host/Interviewer]

And yet it still happens.

[Ashley Banfield]

It still does happen, but it's a very rare occurrence. And since there has been nothing in the DNA and the forensics and all of the technical capability that we have applied to all of these different possibilities, and we're still coming up with zero, then that kind of reframes the expectation that this was an insider threat.

[Host/Interviewer]

You know, I always come back to the expression, Mike Tyson once said, everyone has a plan until you get punched in the face. And is that effectively what you're saying here is that there might have been a plan for this household that did not involve taking Nancy from her bed in the dark of night, as Savannah said, but something went completely askew In a what, burglary or something else?

[Ashley Banfield]

Yeah, or just a fear campaign or an influence campaign. Or maybe she had some kind of valuables there that they needed or wanted, or they needed her signature or they had. She had something on her computer that they needed or wanted. There's a whole lot there. But insider threat is still where all of these. All of these arrows are pointing for me.

[Host/Interviewer]

And when you say insider threat, you

[Ashley Banfield]

mean someone who had. Who knew her well, who was part of a close friend, family, or circle of people of influence in her life?

[Host/Interviewer]

Could that also include contractors? People who've worked there, maybe just had two or three words or got a lemonade once when they were working in the yard?

[Ashley Banfield]

I would put them more into the stranger component. That would be more of a target of opportunity. When you see violence, or especially predatory violence enacted, it's when opportunity meets vulnerability. I've seen that with people who have valuables in their home and contractors hit it. And then when they know the family's on vacation, they'll go and take the gold or they'll take this or they'll take that. But if you're going to do that. There's an old saying in my world where if someone comes during the day, they're coming for your stuff. If they come at night, they're coming for you. And so you take that into consideration.

[Host/Interviewer]

Wow. That's ominous. Spencer, thank you. Thank you so much.

[Ashley Banfield]

My pleasure.

[Host/Interviewer]

My thanks to Spencer Corson, Jim Clemente, again, someone I have worked with for decades in the business of criminal justice. He is a retired FBI supervisory special agent and a profiler, and he's a former New York state prosecutor. He has a lot to say about this particular crime and what he thinks might have happened. Here's my conversation. So, Jim, from a behavioral perspective, what do you think happened at Nancy's home?

[Jim Clemente]

Well, I believe that the person that we saw in the videos from the door camera was the abductor. And I believe that this person had some connection to either Nancy Guthrie or Savannah Guthrie. And that connection may have been in his own mind. In other words, he may have been fixated on the celebrity of it. And if so, I think this person probably has a history of actually being fixated on female celebrities. And because of some set of circumstances, he felt that. That Nancy was available and vulnerable at this moment. Now, that could be because he drove her in an Uber or did some repairs at her house, or baby, maybe delivered something to her house and determined that she lived there alone. But there's some reason why he Felt that again, she was alone and vulnerable at that particular time. But I also think that seeing him in the video, we're talking probably somebody who's not in his 50s or 60s, but probably in his 30s or 40s and maybe is a male, but maybe somebody who is familiar with that area. I believe that he would have before the events so say five, six weeks ago, he would have been demonstrating a tremendous level of stress preceding these events. And then again on the, on the 10 day after the abduction, the 10th day when his images were released, I think his stress shot through the roof and I think his behavior changed. People who, there are people who live around him or with him or work with him or socialize with him. And he, he definitely changed at that point. And he may have done things like left town for an emergency, hid or painted his car, done something to basically obscure his own features. And he may have, if he does, in fact, which it looks like, have a tattoo on his right wrist which was exposed when he was trying to cover up the camera, then he may be trying to remove that or actually cover it up with another tattoo.

[Host/Interviewer]

But do you think he, this perpetrator went there with the express purpose to kidnap an 84 year old woman and take her out of that home alive or dead? Like, what do you think happened inside the home?

[Jim Clemente]

Well, that obviously that's the million dollar question. The fact is that there would be no reason for him if he went there for a robbery and then things went wrong and she ended up getting hurt or killed. There would be no reason for him to take her. Unless his motivation was 100% kidnapping, that's one option. Then he would obviously have to take her. Or if his motivation was some sort of fixation on her and he wanted to be with her, then that's another reason why he might want to take her. The third reason is if there is a known connection between him and her or him in that location at that time. In other words, he would feel if he had, for example, if he had to make a delivery at that time, if he had to, if he just recently made a delivery or repairs or did work there at the house, then he might have felt that people would look at him. So he might want to take her to delayed discovery. But I think actually the biggest issue in this case is the fact that these ransom letters were sent to a local CBS affiliate and to tmz, just putting it out in the media immediately. And that is the most actually outrageous thing that he did. Because generally kidnappers want to get the money that's their purpose.

[Host/Interviewer]

This is the story of the 1. As a procurement manager for a hospital system, she keeps every facility in her network stocked and ready. That's why she counts on Grainger to be her single source for thousands of products from disinfectants to lighting, air filters and more. And with fast, dependable delivery, Grainger helps her keep every facility stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click granger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[Ashley Banfield]

My amex Blue Cash Everyday Card is my go to accessory. When I shop, I can earn 3% cash back on US online retail purchases. Try on the Blue Cash Everyday card. Learn more@American Express.com Explore BCE terms and cash back cap apply. If you're a maintenance supervisor at a manufacturing facility and your machinery isn't working right, Grainger knows you need to understand what's wrong as soon as possible. So when a conveyor motor falters, Grainger offers diagnostic tools like calibration kits and multimeters to help you identify and fix the problem. With Grainger, you can be confident you have everything you need to keep your facility running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER clickgrainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[Casey Jordan]

Finding ways to be financially savvy is a smart move. And knowing you could be saving money for the things really want like that dream home or new ride is a great feeling. That's why the State Farm personal price plan can help you save when you choose to bundle home and auto bundling just another way to save with the personal price plan. Prices are based on rating plans that vary by state.

[Host/Interviewer]

Coverage options are selected by the customer. Availability, amount of discounts and savings and eligibility vary by state. But you don't think that he's the person who sent the letters. We all, many of us felt as though this was a separate crime from just grifters who wanted to make a bad situation worse.

[Jim Clemente]

That's the case. I think law enforcement is reporting that he, he had the letter. At least one of the letters had specific information about the placement of her watch in the home.

[Host/Interviewer]

That information, I could guess that, I could guess that my watch is always charging beside my bed. So many people charge their watch beside their bed, you know.

[Jim Clemente]

Yeah, well that may be the case, but to put it in there actually was a high risk situation. If you actually were trying to get the information, I mean, excuse me, you were trying to give the information to get the money, then you, you wouldn't Take a risk like that. Yes. The broken light outside was observable for people outside, but if that letter is real. And again, I wish that Jim Fitzgerald and I could go through the actual text of that letter, because that would tell us a tremendous amount. We've got a lot of experience analyzing letters that are used in kidnapping cases, authentic letters, and I'd like to know all the details. But assuming it. If it is connected to the actual abduction, then that motivation spills out. What this guy really wants, and that is attention. Whether he wanted the attention from Nancy Guthrie or from Savannah Guthrie or from the public in general, that is what those letters tell me. That is a cry for attention. That is very unusual in a kidnapping case.

[Host/Interviewer]

So you think those letters might be real or. I mean, there's. There's three different iterations, right? There's the original, then there's the alleged liar from California, and then there's the third one that started peppering tmz only with a brand new wallet, address and brand new language.

[Jim Clemente]

Right. I. I don't. I don't know if any of the other ones, other than the one that mentioned her watch, any of them are related at all. However, I do believe that if there was a specific. A very specific set of information that only the abductor would know in those letters, that then they are generally thought to be authentic. But here's the thing. If he didn't, if that wasn't his intent, taking her away from the home is the highest risk behavior he could have done. Breaking into her home is high risk enough, but taking her away, that brings the crime with him. It puts her DNA wherever he is or in his vehicle, and it connects him. He could get stopped. He could get seen. Those. Those are really high risk behaviors generally

[Host/Interviewer]

either got a harbor, right, Jim? He's either got to harbor her alive, a woman who's in ill health, or if she's not alive, he's got to somehow conceal that and. And dispose of a body. All of that. Extraordinarily difficult, right?

[Jim Clemente]

But not only extraordinarily difficult. Useless. Unless there's no connection between the two of them. Or he basically. That was his intent in the first place, to take her and kill her.

[Host/Interviewer]

Fun for fun.

[Jim Clemente]

It. It makes no sense that way. However, when you have some certain stalker situations, especially when they feel like they have a connection with a celebrity because the celebrity is very kind and. And very friendly and speaks to her audience, he could feel that. That he's being spoken to, and therefore he developed in his mind this whole relationship and at some point, he may have reached out to her. I would certainly look at all the letters, all the fan letters that. That Savannah has gotten over the years, and if Nancy has gotten any, I would look at those, and I would try to find out whether there's somebody who at some point expressed a desire to be with her or be closer to her or get contact from her, and they didn't get it. And then maybe it switched, and maybe the letters got angry or maybe he went silent and this is the way he got her attention or got revenge. Yes, revenge is also a possibility.

[Host/Interviewer]

So let's talk about revenge for just a hot minute, because that is a hell of a job for revenge. If that's the motive, my God, the risk level, the exposure, the danger and the hassle, all of those. Does. Does that look like it's even possible, a revenge motivation?

[Jim Clemente]

Well, if it's tied to fixation or stalking, yes, it does. But if it's not tied to that, if it's revenge for some kind of slight that happened or some kind of brushing off or something, it doesn't sound like it. And although this guy had put in some preparation, some significant amount of preparation, he was not a professional. This is not something that. That he's done before. He bumbled his way through the. The dealing with that door cam and. And he exposed a lot of himself in that process. Not only his height, his weight, generally his age, how he moves, but also his eyes and his. The fact that he appeared. He had a mustache.

[Casey Jordan]

He.

[Jim Clemente]

He also would have exposed. He exposed his mouth, which meant he's breathing his DNA into the crime scene. His eyes and eyelashes and eyebrows and his mustache. All those hairs, because they're rubbing against that face mask, could have fallen out at the crime scene. All of those things exposed him to basically discovery and identification.

[Host/Interviewer]

Well, if any of them were collected, this has been such a big frustration is that they might not have been collected. Whatever. It might not have, you know, took his bite. Bite light out of his mouth. It's on the fingers of the gloves, which touched some, you know, entry and egress to the house.

[Jim Clemente]

Absolutely. And, you know, I sort of cringed when I saw afterwards people entering the house, grabbing the doorknob and twisting it and. And just thinking, well, did they just take away or contaminate the DNA that was left there? Now, hopefully, the crime scene people that initially processed the house did a lot of vacuuming and maybe used certain tools that are out there, like M Vac to collect DNA. Hopefully they did that because that kind of stuff you can't see with your eyes. So you basically have to sort of sweep certain areas and try to get the high probability areas where he would have contacted her, the front door, and also the obviously her bedroom because it was late at night.

[Host/Interviewer]

So just sort of in a nutshell, I know it's hard, but given the person you saw at the door, bungling fool. I would say fully prepared backpack, fully prepared disguise, and the possibility that he'd been there before casing, given the fact that those two images are now, according to sources from different days, do you think he was there to take Nancy, or do you think he was there to take or do something else and ultimately had to take Nancy?

[Jim Clemente]

The thing that gives me pause, I mean, generally I would say he was there to take Nancy. That's what he did. But what gives me pause is the amount of time it took him to accomplish that goal. If. If it actually did, was he. If he was actually in the home, about 41 minutes. That's a hell of a long time.

[Host/Interviewer]

A lot of people have said that. I'm not so sure. We don't know when entry was made to the home. All we know is that a camera was disabled at 1:47am and an image showed up on another camera or maybe the same one at 2:12am but we don't know when the home was actually breached.

[Jim Clemente]

Correct. That's why I said if he was in there for 41 minutes, that takes a long time. Now, it may have taken him a lot longer to get in. I don't know how he got in, whether it was through the back door, which apparently was left open.

[Maureen O'Connell]

That.

[Jim Clemente]

That to me tells me that he. If he tried to get in the front door and then tried to get in this back door and then ended up leaving, most likely through the front door, it wasn't a significantly well planned event. However, what I would say is I think he did intend to take her. That's what he actually did. If it was a burglary gone bad, I don't believe there's any reason he would have taken her. If it was a revenge motive or a sexual motive, I think in neither of those cases it would be necessary for him to take her and therefore I think he did in fact intend to take her. That's what he did. What the big question is, what did he do with her?

[Host/Interviewer]

Jim Clemente, thank you so much to ponder. It's all so disturbing, but it is the question that's on everyone's mind. So I appreciate your time. Thank you.

[Jim Clemente]

Thank you.

[Host/Interviewer]

My thanks to Jim Clemente. Tracy Walger is retired CIA and retired FBI special agent. She knows bad guys as good as anybody else and sometimes and oftentimes even better. Here's my conversation with Tracy. Tracy, based on what we know and understanding, there's a lot we don't know. What is your theory about what happened to Nancy Guthrie?

[Tracy Walder]

You know, it's funny, I've never shared it, like, publicly on any of the news outlets before. So I try to be. I want to be sensitive, obviously, to the Guthrie family in talking about this, but this is what I think happened. And I said from the beginning, one of the things that I thought was interesting is that her mom's home was readily accessible. The address, phone number, all of those things on a site called been verified. It has since been taken down. And so what I think is this is someone who was either obsessed with Savannah, either had an issue with something she had done, said, or someone that she had interviewed and has some kind of a personal problem. I would imagine they've already gone through any stalking emails and things like that that she may have have received, and this person may have actually not reached out to her. But I think this is someone that was simmering for quite some time and upset with her, and as a result, knew it might be difficult to get directly to her or, you know, thank goodness, her children or the rest of her family. And so picked, in my perception, probably the most vulnerable person or the easiest target in her family to essentially get back at her. And so I think this person planned this. I don't want to say for years, because I don't think that that's the case, but I think this person planned this for a bit of time, and that's why her mother was selected as the target.

[Host/Interviewer]

But do you think that someone would go to such extraordinary lengths, because this truly was extraordinary, just to exact some revenge to someone. They hadn't even reached out to themselves at any point in advance of this.

[Tracy Walder]

You know, here's the thing, Ashley. I'll just share something personal. I think if I had not been a victim of several different pretty severe stalking incidences in the past, I would agree. But because I have been and because I've seen what these individuals have done who have never reached out to me before, that's why I'm leaning more towards that, only just because of what I know I've experienced personally.

[Host/Interviewer]

But then if this is the case, and again, this is all conjecture because we don't know what happened and we don't know some of the evidence that the police have obviously collected. But if this is the theory, would he have taken her alive or would he have taken her dead? Both of them just seem so extraordinarily difficult.

[Tracy Walder]

I think they both seem so outrageous, to be totally honest with you. But as I said, you know, before, obviously working CIA, FBI, I've seen what horrible things people can do, you know, to each other. But I think until you experience that, you know, for yourself, right, and people stalking you physically, all of those things, it's not readily apparent what people. What people, excuse me, are capable of. I don't believe that she was killed in the home. I do believe that she was probably taken alive. And I do believe that right now she's no longer, you know, with us. I just. I don't think, unfortunately, that that's. That's possible. But I do think that taking of her mother, who she's done segments with before, who she's talked about before, who I think, by all purposes that we've seen, has this really loving, kind of beautiful relationship to close relationship with. It seems that that really was a target that this person saw and said, I'm gonna. This is the way I'm gonna get to her.

[Host/Interviewer]

Do you think that she was taken from the house alive, based on the blood drops and the pattern that goes down the front walk towards the driveway?

[Tracy Walder]

I do. So I think maybe she was injured. I do think that for sure, the amount of blood that is there. And I had talked to Brian into about this. Cause I was curious about, you know, how big it was. And all of that I do not believe is consistent with someone having lost their life. I also do think, and again, we can talk about the sheriff not maybe doing the best job and all of this. I do think that we would know that this was sort of a recovery situation, that they would have told us that if there was enough blood to be inconsistent with human life at the home.

[Host/Interviewer]

It's certainly not a lot. And what I'm struck by is that there's no footsteps in it or signs of struggle in those blood drops, which, you know, I've spoken to a few other people. But if someone is asking her to march out of her home at gunpoint and she's bleeding, presumably that person is behind her and would be stepping in it. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

[Tracy Walder]

So I don't think that she walked out of the home. That's, again, my personal. I have, you know, obviously no evidence to corroborate that. I believe that she was probably carried simply because we've heard a lot about her limited mobility. I am certain she was scared. I am certain that, you know, I think her mobility would have been hindered. What I think. And because the blood trail really just like stops there, right? It doesn't go any place. It doesn't go further down the driveway, I guess, is what I'm saying.

[Host/Interviewer]

Well, that we know of. Because honestly, who knows what CSI was actually.

[Tracy Walder]

Yes, you are correct. That we know of. Right. It just is right there in one solid location. I think that the person maybe realized that either shade of blood, you know, or something was. It was, was happening and then stopped that or put something on top of it to stop that. But I think if you're carrying someone and their head's kind of this, you may not have stepped in that.

[Ashley Banfield]

If you're a maintenance supervisor at a manufacturing facility and your machinery isn't working right, Grainger knows you need to understand what's wrong as soon as possible. So when a conveyor motor falters, Grainger offers diagnostic tools like calibration kits and multi meters to help you identify and fix the problem. With Grainger, you can be confident you have everything you need to keep your facility running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER clickgranger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[Casey Jordan]

Having the right people in your corner

[Host/Interviewer]

for life's biggest milestones makes all the difference.

[Casey Jordan]

Like a friend who's there when you're house hunting or checking out a new

[Host/Interviewer]

ride, State Farm is there too, helping you choose the coverage you need.

[Casey Jordan]

With a State Farm agent, you know

[Host/Interviewer]

someone is there to help you along the way. And with so many coverage options, it's nice knowing you have help choosing a

[Casey Jordan]

plan that fits your needs so you can continue celebrating all of life's milestones. Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there.

[Host/Interviewer]

Did you know that parents rank financial literacy as the number one most difficult life skill to teach?

[Casey Jordan]

Meet Greenlight, the debit card and money app for families.

[Host/Interviewer]

With Greenlight, you can set up chores, automate allowance and keep an eye on your kids spending. With real time notifications, kids learn to earn, save and spend wisely. And parents can rest easy knowing their kids are learning about money with guardrails in place. Sign up for Greenlight [e-mail] podcast.

[Casey Jordan]

Having the right people in your corner

[Host/Interviewer]

for life's biggest milestones makes all the difference.

[Casey Jordan]

Like a friend who's there when you're house hunting or checking out a new

[Host/Interviewer]

ride, State Farm is there too, helping

[Casey Jordan]

you choose the coverage you need with a State Farm agent.

[Host/Interviewer]

You know, someone is there to help

[Casey Jordan]

you along the way.

[Host/Interviewer]

And with so many coverage options, it's

[Casey Jordan]

nice knowing you have help choosing a plan that fits your needs so you can continue celebrating all of life's milestones.

[Host/Interviewer]

Like a good neighbor.

[Casey Jordan]

State Farm is there.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense as well. And do you believe that this person had every intention of going there to get Nancy, or do you think it was an accident that started to spiral out of control and eventually he just did what he thought in the moment might be the best plan, and that is take her with him?

[Tracy Walder]

Okay, so those. I kind of have two different answers for that, if that's okay. I do believe Nancy was the target in this case. I don't believe it was a robbery gone wrong. Those kinds of things, like a random robbery. Correct. I don't believe that this was a random crime, if that makes sense. I do believe she was targeted. Now, I do believe in that backpack were things to subdue her. Now, I don't know if he was going to subdue her in the home. Right. And had no intention of taking her from the home. But I do think that either he had intention of taking her from the home or kind of got spooked at the last minute and realized this isn't a good plan to keep her here. I'm gonna get caught, I'm gonna get found out and left with her. I think the former is probably the case. I think they intended on removing her from the home and torturing Savannah essentially, and her family in every way that they could.

[Host/Interviewer]

And then do you think something might have gone wrong because of Nancy's ill health and her need for medication and the fact that she's been gone for five weeks now almost. And that's why your thought is that she may no longer be with us?

[Tracy Walder]

I do. I mean, it sounds to me, again, I do not know her personally, that, you know, she is very reliant on medication. And it's not just headache medication.

[Maureen O'Connell]

Right.

[Tracy Walder]

This is. This is heart life saving medication. And so maybe this person planned to have that medication with him. I don't know. But I'm just going under the likely scenario that if they did not, and if her pacemaker is not working properly, then that is not usually conducive. Right. To the heart continuing to work.

[Host/Interviewer]

Do you think we're going to solve the crime?

[Tracy Walder]

I think so. I think in this day and age, yes. Do I think it's going to be solved in the next hour. I do not.

[Host/Interviewer]

Tracy Walder, thank you so much.

[Tracy Walder]

Thank you so much, Ashley.

[Host/Interviewer]

My great thanks to Tracy. This next guest, you've seen him with me before. Matt Murphy comes to this story from a different angle. He's a former senior homicide prosecutor in the Orange County, California office, the DA's office. He also, I guess you could say wrote the book on murder. He's, his book is called the Book of Murder. It is a great read, so I highly recommend you take a look. But Matt comes at this from a different perspective and our conversation is fascinating. So, Matt, given that we, we know some things and we definitely don't know other things, given that the police will not have released some of those things, what is your best assessment of what happened to Nancy Guthrie? What are your thoughts about, about what happened in that home?

[Matt Murphy]

Well, I think, and I've, I've talked to you about this before. I think she was dead inside the house. I've always believed that. I hope I'm wrong. This is absolutely horrible for the family, of course, but when you see blood like that on the outside and you're talking about somebody who is, she was, you know, she was very, not very old, but she was old and she was frail and she had a heart condition. And when you're bleeding that badly on the outside of the house, you know, we, that's the one thing we haven't seen, Ashley, is we haven't seen photos of the inside. I'm not suggesting that we should have seen those. But there was violence visited upon that poor woman inside her house. When you look at that video, that guy was there with a plan. And when you see that backpack, like we've talked about before, I think there was a tarp in that backpack. And that is one of the things that you'll see when you deal with enough violent crimes as a police officer or as a prosecutor or as a judge, is they come in with kits. Now, that's commonly a rape kit. A lot of people think that you age out of being a sexual assault victim. Sadly, I'm here to tell you, you do not. There is no age limit. I've always wondered if this could be a potential sex case, if this could be a serial killer. And the bottom line is we just don't know. But I will make a prediction right now, Ashley. I think that this case will eventually be solved. I don't think at this point, honestly, we're ever going to find our body. Maybe we will, but I kind of doubt it. As a general rule, when you prosecute Cases in Southern California like this, if somebody gets a body out into the desert, it's very common that we will not find them. I've prosecuted many no body cases. I've done five of them and I've got a couple that got the bodies out to the desert. We had cell phone paintings, we know almost exactly the area and we still couldn't find them. Cadaver dogs, all the rest of it. And so I wouldn't be surprised if her body has never recovered. But eventually the case itself will be solved. I have no confidence, frankly, in Laura Conover, the da, that they will prosecute a nobody case. I hope, again, I'm wrong. But I virtually guarantee that when the identity of this person is discovered that this is not his first rodeo. I bet he has been involved in the criminal process in Pima county. And I bet you anything that when we look back on this a year, five years from now when the case is finally put together, and I think at this point it could be that long, that this will be a frequent flyer that they knew about that got out earlier than he should have. I will bet you anything he's one of those. Well, and this is.

[Host/Interviewer]

So, yeah, if you go back to what you were saying about geriatric rape, which is, you know, so foreign to so many of us and plus, we don't want to go there. But, but I heard a statistic that was just unbelievable. 70% of geriatric perpetrators, geriatric rape perpetrators are in their 20s. And that victims are usually left behind either dead or alive. So this is a very unusual outlier if that's the case.

[Matt Murphy]

Very. It's very unusual. And there's no, no question about that. This is that you exponentially increase the odds of getting caught by moving a body. That's just a fact. And this is a body. I think she was wrapped up in that tarp when he took her out. I think that she bled out on the steps. You and I have talked about similar cases. I did at one. My Judy Valak case where woman murdered her boyfriend who. And she was about 100 pounds soaking wet. This woman and her boyfriend was a Vietnam vet. He weighed about 220 pounds, guy named Pete Terrio, very nice man, by the way. She murdered him in the house and she managed to get his body out. And the blood droplets, even the tiles look the same to me. And she got his body out into the same desert, took him out to a place called Blythe, which is right on the Arizona, California border. We never found. We never found his Body, but we prosecuted her anyway.

[Host/Interviewer]

First of all, just go back to that. How did she do that?

[Matt Murphy]

Well, there's a will, there's a way. And she. She got his body inside the car. She pulled the car into the garage. But the. On the. The tiles outside the bedroom, getting the body out of the bedroom. We believe she shot him. Bodies don't bleed when somebody's dead because you require the heart beating. But they sure will leak blood, as graphic as that sounds. That's. I mean, look. And again, I look through this through the most jaded lens imaginable after four years in sexual assault and 17 in homicide. So I again, I pray that I'm wrong on all of this. But yeah, but yeah, moving the body is exponentially increases the risk. So it is incredibly unusual. However, she's not there and they move the body. All of those ransom notes are fake, by the way. I called that out at the very beginning. None of those are real. They're so transparently not real. All the TMZ stuff, those are scammers. When you appeal to the public, you have three groups of people that are going to come out of the woodwork. You've got well meaning folks that want to help, and you got to sift through all those and you got to devote resources to those. And this sheriff went to the public very soon. I have no criticism of that. But you're going to get well meaning people in the community. And you know, I heard somebody screaming, but it might have been my neighbor's wife. I heard some noises, but it might have been the raccoons. Again, you got to sift through all those. Then you get your crazy people to come out and say it was the werewolves that did it or the vampires. And. And those are guaranteed. And sadly, in the modern era, we also get people that are going to try to profit off the apoplectic grief of poor families like the Guthrie family. And again, I don't know what this turns into. And one of the things I learned in the homicide unit is you have to maintain an open mind. This could be any number of things at this point. I don't want to call it because I just don't have enough facts. But I will tell you this. I am very disappointed with the. With the way the sheriff has conducted it. I haven't been shy about that. I want to be fair to him. It's a tough position to be in. I've been on that stage where elected officials have been at that podium fielding questions. I think that he's handled all that Very poorly in just my opinion here. But this absent DA coming from a vertical system where the prosecutors there that night assisting the police in their investigation, from, from the set of eyes of what can be admissible and not admissible. And it's really important to remember here, this isn't just about figuring out who, who this person is and who did it. It's about holding them accountable and making sure that the investigation has enough integrity that whatever they discover, evidence wise, is admissible because that's how you achieve justice in our system. It's not just about an arrest, which seems to be the, like the viewpoint of some of the law enforcement leadership. It, this is about, it's the whole picture. It's about figuring out who did it and then holding them accountable so they can't do this to anybody else. And it seems that second, absolutely critical, I would argue maybe even more important part of this has been absent. Now I don't know what's going on behind the scenes, but it just seems like the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. And I don't have any faith in Laura Conover. Sorry.

[Host/Interviewer]

Well, absolutely. Prosecution side, leaving the prosecution side.

[Matt Murphy]

But they should be involved in the investigation, making sure that mistakes aren't made that will lead to the suppression of evidence. Every time you throw handcuffs on somebody, Ashley, like we heard about this Uber Eats guy or the people that they've detained with SWAT teams, that, that strikes me, again, just my opinion, as performative actions by the sheriff. That's exactly how you screw up a prosecution. If they kick in a door out of the enthusiasm of one detective or somebody and they didn't get a warrant and you have a cornucopia of evidence, you will not be able to prosecute that case. So again, I hope I'm wrong. I always hated when talking heads would criticize the cases I was working on. But from what I've seen, I have very little confidence in the sheriff or the DA to properly put this case together.

[Host/Interviewer]

But then jumping to the FBI, do you believe that we will eventually solve this case?

[Matt Murphy]

I think I really do think we will. I think that the FBI. FBI is a different story when it comes to abductions. They're the best in the world at finding that. Sorry, sorry for the sirens. You can tell what city I'm in by the sound in the background.

[Host/Interviewer]

Looks like New York in the background.

[Matt Murphy]

Yeah. Look, I think that eventually this case will be solved. And I think that part of that is. I think the media pressure will remain. It'll lessen over time, But I think the public interest is intense. This poor woman is somebody that we can all relate to. She looked just like my grandma. I think she looks like everybody's grandma. Savannah Guthrie. My heart breaks for her. You can just see the grief on her face. It's the worst thing a family can go through. And again, I can't tell you how much I hope I'm wrong on all of this for that family. But I would feel a lot better about it, just as a citizen, if they were better served by the. By the law enforcement. We've seen the FBI, Remember, unless there's some angle that I'm unaware of or some piece of evidence that hasn't come to light, this is a state case. Actually, this is not a federal case. So the FBI is there in a supportive role, which means they kind of have to defer to the decision making of the law enforcement leadership of Pima county. And that's the DA and the elected sheriff. And so far, in my view, it's been a clown show.

[Host/Interviewer]

So I know what you were about to say. I can feel it. And I think you're not alone. I think everybody watching. Yeah, everybody watching has sort of had that feeling as well. I'm frustrated.

[Jim Clemente]

Yeah.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah. And the confounding mystery of what happened in that house, I think, is what has so many of us just wanting to know, but also wanting the resolution. Matt, thank you for this.

[Matt Murphy]

Of course. Anytime.

[Host/Interviewer]

Actually, my great thanks to Matt Murphy.

[Casey Jordan]

Okay.

[Host/Interviewer]

Maureen o'. Connell. You have seen her with me a couple of times before. She's very analytical. She's a retired FBI special agent, and she has followed this crime line by line. Here's my conversation with Maureen. Maureen, given what we know and what we don't know, what do you think happened in the Nancy Guthrie crime?

[Maureen O'Connell]

Well, I think initially, whatever was supposed to happen may have gone south. And I think Nancy, unfortunately, was injured when they were either trying to get her out or perhaps trying to get her attention. When they first got in the residence and then they got her out the front door, she bled on the front stoop, got into a car, and we have no idea what happened after that.

[Host/Interviewer]

Do you think she was alive or dead when they took her?

[Maureen O'Connell]

I think she was alive when they took her, But I have no idea what the status is now. And I'm obviously, like everyone else, losing faith as time goes by. And, you know, it's just. It's just devastating when you see the

[Host/Interviewer]

perpetrator on the camera. And as sources have said to every journalistic, outlet. Those images on the camera are from different days, which would suggest this person cased Nancy's home on a different date and then arrived on the 1st of February. When you see that perpetrator on camera with that backpack, knowing he cased the place, what do you think he was there for?

[Maureen O'Connell]

Well, I know he cased the place prior, but I'm not so sure that that image wasn't taken the same night of the abduction. And the reason I say that is because it would make sense to me that he would have put Nancy in the car and then he walked back up to the front porch because it was an arduous experience trying to get her out of there and into the car and everything. And I think he went back to the front door to look to see if he left any evidence or if he left anything. But it could have been from another night. But to me it makes. Because who's going to put on the exact same outfit?

[Host/Interviewer]

I mean, to me it's shocking as well. Although if you want to have an outfit that you're going to dispose of, maybe you've got the same one. And given that the very first time of disconnection is 1:47am well, it's only a little less than two hours earlier to hit a different date, you know, to be the date before. And we have never been told what that other date is.

[Maureen O'Connell]

That's a fair point too.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah, yeah, but what do you think the mission, motive, intention was for this guy? Given the backpack, given the stealth, given the awkwardness of how he approached that camera?

[Maureen O'Connell]

The whole thing never really seemed to me to be about a kidnapping. It just doesn't make sense to take an 84 year old woman with mobility issues who's bleeding and put her into a vehicle. I just can't see the upside of that. From, from, I mean, from the smartest criminal to the dumbest criminal, I cannot see anyone making that decision and thinking it's a good one.

[Host/Interviewer]

So what do you think the intention was then if it wasn't kidnapping?

[Maureen O'Connell]

I think it was a hit.

[Host/Interviewer]

You think the intention was to. To come in and murder?

[Maureen O'Connell]

Well, it certainly wasn't a burglary because they didn't take anything and they had plenty of time in there to take something. Unless of course, the goal of the perpetrator was to terrorize Savannah and, and take some something of her that's intimate to her from her childhood or something which they didn't even notice was missing. I mean, that's another scenario. But we don't have Enough information to say what we think exactly happened or didn't happen. We probably have 15% or less of what the law enforcement agencies have on hand right now.

[Host/Interviewer]

That's a really good point because it can mean all the difference. When my source said that there's blood droplets that. Inside the house that are the exact match of the blood droplets outside the house, the ones that we've seen on the front stoop and then apparently that carry on down the pathway to the driveway, it just made me wonder, well, if there's no sign of a struggle in the blood and there's no footprints in the blood, I'm trying to put my head into the detectives as to what would have happened and why these droplets are so undisturbed.

[Maureen O'Connell]

Right. They had to. I mean, if they. I said from the beginning I thought the offender had a tarp or something rolled up in his backpack. And if they rolled her up in that, like a burrito and. But then when you get to the door and you're trying to hold her and open the inside door and then open the exterior door and then step to the front porch, you may have, you know, tilted her a little bit or she coughed, because some of those blood droplets are consistent with coughing or aspiration of some sort. And then, you know, the car pull. Then you get her out there and. And then the car pulls up and you put her in the back. It could have been something like that. And, you know, she's hard of hearing, so when they went in, they probably couldn't get her attention. Maybe she was sound asleep, and maybe they were shouting, and maybe someone, you know, struck her initially to wake her up, or she wasn't responding to their commands because she couldn't hear them. And maybe someone struck her at that point, and that could have caused or initiated the bleeding in the interior of the house, which my understanding is. Was similar to what's on the front porch.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah. If you know that. So it could have been a coughing

[Maureen O'Connell]

in there and then another cough on the. On the porch.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah. Or the. Or just the. The droplets, you know, as they were. Do you think that. That Nancy was taken out of the house alive?

[Maureen O'Connell]

Yes, I do.

[Host/Interviewer]

And. And what makes you feel that way?

[Maureen O'Connell]

Because of the. The blood? Because, you know, there's an old saying that says dead. Dead bodies don't bleed. And it looked to me like that was from a cough or something because it looks slightly aspirated. Some of the blood droplets look almost like. Like. Like they were bubbles initially that popped. And, you know, I don't Know, I, that's just my feeling.

[Host/Interviewer]

Do you think we're going to solve this case?

[Maureen O'Connell]

Yes.

[Host/Interviewer]

Confident?

[Maureen O'Connell]

Yes.

[Host/Interviewer]

Why?

[Maureen O'Connell]

I just am very confident when you, I mean, this would be a hard case for a lot of people to solve, but with the resources that are being made available to this investigation right now and the state of the world, so to speak, with regard to forensic capabilities and electronic capabilities, I think we're going to be good.

[Host/Interviewer]

I hope you're right. Maureen, thank you for this.

[Maureen O'Connell]

You're welcome.

[Host/Interviewer]

My great thanks to Maureen o'. Connell. Next up, someone you might not have heard from at least. This was my first time speaking with Douglas McGregor, but I saw Douglas McGregor on X because his analysis was very specific about this crime. And it turns out when I followed him and looked into him, well, he does have quite a background. He is from the Iris Investigative Strategies company. He is a geographic profiler and a forensic intelligence analyst. Here's my conversation with Douglas. Douglas, given what we know and what we don't know, with your professional expertise and background, what do you think happened

[Ashley Banfield]

when it comes to, for this case, it's obviously very complex case. It's a very rare case, an elder abduction. However, when I look at, when I, when I try to think in my head and process a theory, you know, first I'm looking for, when I try to develop a theory, I'm looking for, you know, the trifecta. You have to have either motive, you have to have suspect, a suspect or a target, one of those three things or a combination thereof. And in this case, at least what we know publicly, we really don't have any of those three. We don't know motive, we don't know suspect, and we don't know what the primary target is. And I can get into each one of those now. I can give some hypotheses regarding a theory, but it was likely, in my opinion, a planned abduction. I can, I can say that just due to the, the time the offender entered their home at 2:00am you know, 2:00am Is, it's not the time you enter a home for typical time for a burglary. So they entered at 2am they allegedly removed Nancy from the property. Again, publicly, we don't have proof that she was removed from the property, but that seems like the most likely scenario that she was removed by the man with the mask in the video.

[Host/Interviewer]

Wait, we have proof that she's removed from the property. She's gone, right?

[Ashley Banfield]

She's gone. But was she removed by the person in the video? I just can't say. 100 that I know that as a member of the public.

[Host/Interviewer]

What would be the alternative theory about why she's not there?

[Ashley Banfield]

The only alternative theory would be two independent events. This individual entered the property, became, got in contact with. With Nancy, either intentionally or unintentionally left, and then Nancy left injured, looking for assistance. Unlikely. But publicly I don't know that that didn't happen. Right. I'm leaning more towards she was taken by this individual.

[Host/Interviewer]

Well, let me jump in there. Only because the sheriff has confirmed to us that she was taken. They've said, they've said 100% she didn't wander. This wasn't a case of elderly dementia or anything else. And that the signs in the house, which she couldn't give us, indicated 100 that Nancy was taken against her will. So that's, that's what we know publicly.

[Ashley Banfield]

And, and if he's, if he's said that, then, you know, I will. I tend to side with law enforcement unless I know otherwise.

[Host/Interviewer]

Well, let's, let's go on. But let's go on. That theory is that publicly we know this much. So if we go. We've taken your first, your first point. Go to your, your second point based on the, the, the public knowledge that the sheriff has actually revealed.

[Jim Clemente]

Sure.

[Ashley Banfield]

So as I mentioned, it was a 2am entry, not typical for a burglary.

[Paul Holes]

Right.

[Ashley Banfield]

Somebody that enters at 2am in the morning, they either, they either don't care that somebody's at home. Right. Which is very high risk on their part. They know the person's at home and they're targeted. They know the person's vulnerable or they thought the person was going to be elsewhere. It's kind of one of those scenarios. But other than, but they all, every single one of those, except for not caring if the person is home, indicate that this offender knew Nancy and. Or her property, was familiar with Nancy and. Or her property and was comfortable in the area.

[Host/Interviewer]

So not random. Not somebody who was just skipping around looking for a home in that neighborhood that night.

[Ashley Banfield]

To me, it does not suggest an opportunistic event.

[Host/Interviewer]

And there's also, there's also the reporting that the images on the nest cam came from different nights or dates. At least that suggests that, that this person was casing Nancy's home in advance.

[Paul Holes]

Correct.

[Ashley Banfield]

And again, I don't know if that's been proven without a doubt with the timestamps. I'm not sure if, if this individual visited on multiple nights and was caught on camera multiple nights, to me that decreases. That puts in question the level of sophistication, because it wasn't planned out and it wasn't carried out at one time. So there's that. It also really increases the level of risk and the amount of risk the offender is willing to take because they are going back to the same location, they're putting themselves back on camera. And, I mean, they don't know who had that original footage from the first time they were there.

[Host/Interviewer]

But I always thought that sophistication is, you know, underscored by people who do their homework and case the place in advance. But you're saying the opposite.

[Ashley Banfield]

I'm not saying the opposite necessarily. Absolutely. Sophistication. They've cased the area. They know her, they know her routines. They know the vulnerabilities of the property, how to get in, how to get out. They know victimology of the person that's there. But would they, if they knew the camera was there, would they put themselves on camera, leave, and come back again? So just the fact that he put himself on camera, he saw the camera, he left, and he still decided to come back, it just. It suggests that. Well, it's just one of two things. Either a lack of sophistication, or it greatly increases the value of that target.

[Matt Murphy]

Right.

[Ashley Banfield]

It means that target was so important, whether it was Nancy or whether it was her property or something in her property, the target was so important that the offender couldn't substitute it for another property or another person.

[Host/Interviewer]

But you do think this will be solved?

[Ashley Banfield]

I think so.

[Host/Interviewer]

Douglas, thank you. Thank you for this. I really appreciate it.

[Ashley Banfield]

Thank you, Ashley.

[Host/Interviewer]

My great thanks to Douglas MacGregor. And I'm going to wrap up with somebody who has a lot of experience solving some of the hardest crimes to solve. In fact, you might say he solved the hardest crime, the Golden State Killer. He is known for his work as a detective on that case. It was cold for decades and decades, but they found the guy and they prosecuted the guy and they put him away. Paul is a former cold case investigator for the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office. And here's my conversation with Paul. So, Paul, based on what we know, understanding what we don't know, what do you think happened?

[Paul Holes]

Well, you know, obviously it's a complex crime, Ashley, and I think there's a lot more going on that the offender is doing that people aren't necessarily taking into account, or at least considering, you know, everybody right now is thinking that this crime occurred in a linear fashion. You know, you have Nancy coming home from dinner, garage door is closing, and then Offender shows up on her front porch and then he gets into the house, assaults Nancy, abducts Nancy, drives off. Based on other cases that I've worked, I would not dismiss the possibility that the offender was inside the house when Nancy came home. And now he is attacking Nancy, getting control of her or worse, and then going out in front with that costume on and posing in front of the camera at a certain time of night saying, here I am the bad guy that came and abducted Nancy. You know, so that's part of what I would be evaluating. And the sheriff indicated that the garage door closed at 9:15. Now is that because there's an electronic record or a digital record and she has a garage door opener that actually records that, or is that based off of the son in law's statement? He says, well it was about 9:50 when I drove off after watching her go into her garage. If there's digital recordings of the garage door opener opening and closing over the course of the day, one of the things that I'd want to know is are there any suspicious entries of the garage door opening and closing that aren't lining up with Nancy's known life pattern? Because garage doors are frequently attacked by burglars, by serial predators, etc. In order to be able to get into houses, it's possible. You know, I think, I think you mentioned off camera, you know, there's, there's signs of forced entry. If the guy's inside the house and attacks Nancy when she first gets in there, does he go outside the house and kick a door in? Sure, if he's trying to make it look like the crime is something that it's not. You know, I, the, the, I think the video of him on that front porch with that costume on is so compelling, based on my experience, that he is wanting to be seen. He wants to be seen in that costume because he's going, this is an abduction for ransom. And I believe thoroughly this is misdirection. He was there to harm Nancy and he pre planned this crime to set it up to look like it's this, this abduction for ransom. So when the offender does that, that's what we call staging. And that's because the offender in his mind thinks that he is likely going to be a suspect. And this could be somebody very close to Nancy or it could be somebody who delivered something to her house a year prior. But in his mind he's going, I have a connection to her, the victim. I have a connection to that address. And so I have to make it look like Something it's not. And for whatever reason, you know, it there, There may have been a negative interaction with Nancy. There may be a sexual component that the offender is after. There may be something else, but nothing is adding up with what I am seeing in terms of the video that sending the ransom notes out to the media just to further complicate his ability, ability to get, you know, the financial reward for the ransom when he's like, well, I'm doing this for, for money. Well, you don't communicate to the media. You communicate to the family, and you try to keep it as discreet as possible.

[Host/Interviewer]

I mean, so many of us think the ransom is just a ruse. It was just an another crime adjacent, somebody trying to take advantage of a. Of a terrible situation.

[Paul Holes]

And it's possible he's, you know, he's doing. He's setting this whole abduction ransom up as misdirection. But he goes, well, if they're going to drop a million dollars into my account, sure, I'll take it, you know, but I think that there's, you know, I can't say with. With what is known exactly how this crime occurred. It's just, I don't want to, or at least I don't want to make the assumption that it's this Nancy came home, the offender broke into the house, took care of the surveillance cameras, abducted Nancy. She gets hurt in the process. We have the blood out on the front porch, you know, and then drives off and is seeking ransom. I think there's more things going on in this case.

[Host/Interviewer]

And if I understand what you're saying, this is somebody who planned this, but planned to make it look like someone else.

[Paul Holes]

Well, just take a look at the costume he's wearing. You know, he. He bought these items to look like he's this, you know, bad abductor. He's the guy that's going to come in, he's got that goofy, you know, holster with the gun that's hanging on, you know, on the front of his pants. Nobody wears a gun like that. You know, he wants that gun to be seen by the camera. So, you know, that's. This just all tells me, you know, all the, the abduction to ransom aspect is the staging component. And there's an interpersonal thing between this offender and. And Nancy. That is the sense that I've got with, you know, what I know at this time.

[Host/Interviewer]

But if the ransom is all ancillary, it has nothing to do with this offender. This is just people overseas trying to scam because it's making a big headline. What do you think happened inside that house?

[Paul Holes]

Well, you know, one possibility is Nancy comes home, you know, she goes to bed and this offender is able to get inside the house, you know, whether it's through forced entry where there would be a noise. But she's 84 years old, so is, is it possible in the sleep that she doesn't hear anything?

[Host/Interviewer]

And the hearing aids, you know, she's not wearing her hearing aids, presumably when she goes to bed.

[Paul Holes]

Well, and there you go, you know, and I'll tell you just from personal experience, I slept through loud noises at night, right? So the, you know, it's possible that he just goes hands on with her while she's asleep. Whether he gets her bound at that point. Point, you know, I think the, the bleeding from Nancy is, you know, probably is, you know, maybe puts up a struggle, but not necessarily. He may just engage with her with some violence just to, you know, show that he's serious. He's gaining what we call compliance and control straight off the bat. And then, you know, how does he get her out of the house? You know, it's possible he gets her to walk out of the house and he's got a gun with him or he's got a knife with him and he's giving her threats. You know, the big thing that he has to worry about, you know, the neighborhood is set up to where you don't have good vision from the neighbor's house. So he's not so concerned about that. He's got to be concerned about Nancy making a noise, Nancy screaming. So he may just, just try to do that through verbal threats and the threats with the weapons. But he also likely is going to be gagging her, you know, and, and then does she, you know, does he basically force her to walk with him? That's one possibility. The other possibility is he completely binds her up, he gags her, he carries her out of the house. She's got some bleeding injuries. Does he go out onto the front porch, maybe walks further past front porch, you know, and then now there should be continued bleeding that would be observed. And then he gets her into a vehicle and drives off.

[Host/Interviewer]

But Paul, why, why would anybody want an 84 year old woman in that state bound and gagged and in your car? What's next?

[Paul Holes]

Well, you know, it's very possible that everything that he wanted from Nancy occurred in the inside the house. And now, you know, removing Nancy from the house is just in furtherance of the misdirection, the abduction, ransom aspect. So remove, that's my sense.

[Host/Interviewer]

If if she was removed from the house alive, the intention would have been to eventually not keep her alive, but get rid of her in some way.

[Paul Holes]

That's what I think. I think he went there to harm Nancy and whether it was to kill her, whether it was to sexually assault her, you know, that's, you know, who knows at this point with, you know, the, the sheriff's office hasn't revealed all the information that would help me evaluate what was the offender's true motive, you know, but for it to look, you know, this is where the staging aspect comes in. For him to set this up to make it look like it's some stranger that came in because of the, the high profile status of, of Nancy's daughter, etc. You know, he's trying to get law enforcement to think that whereas the reality is, is that he's got some connection to Nancy or, and, and understands that, you know, this is a family, that the abduction for ransom is a ruse. That is something that needs to be taken seriously.

[Host/Interviewer]

With all your background, you've done it for a long time. Is this one the most confounding that you come across? Oh, I know that's asking a lot, or at least one of the most.

[Paul Holes]

You know, I think the way that I would phrase it is that

[Maureen O'Connell]

it's,

[Paul Holes]

it's a case that the offender is putting a lot of energy into in order to, you know, accomplish what the primary goal is. If he truly is abducting Nancy for ransom, he's doing it all wrong. He's showing a lack of sophistication, but I think that's purposeful. I think he's actually a more sophisticated offender who went in to harm Nancy. Now, is it the most confounding? Not necessarily. You know, I've been involved in some, you know, some pretty complex and mysterious cases, you know, and, and you do get offenders that get very, very creative and sometimes they overthink. And I think this guy kind of overthought this and now he's having to dynamically adjust his plans as now the media tension is going on and you have all these law enforcement resources that are converging. He probably wasn't expecting it to blow up quite this much or maybe didn't

[Host/Interviewer]

know about the famous daughter that would blow it up this much.

[Paul Holes]

And that may be, you know, and that's. Where does he see headlines and go, oh, you know, now I would, I would say why, if, if he didn't know about the potential financial assets ahead of time that this family had, why even bother removing Nancy you know, this is now where he's elevating his risk. You always have to think about the, you know, the offender's perspective and evaluating the risk he does. You know, unless there's something more that he wanted to do with Nancy once he got her off the property, that is not unheard of. But if he went there just to harm Nancy in some way, I would think he would have left her there and got the hell out of Dodge and laid low. But that's not what he did.

[Host/Interviewer]

And this is why it is so just perplexing. Paul, thank you. Thank you for this.

[Paul Holes]

Yeah, it's been my pleasure. Thanks, Ashley.

[Host/Interviewer]

My great thanks to Paul Holz and to everybody who weighed in with their thoughts, their theories, their ideas about what might have happened in this particular case and what investigators might be doing to solve the Nancy Guthrie investigation. And my great thanks to you as well. If you haven't already, please hit subscribe and then join. If you feel like joining our club, I'd appreciate it. I'd love to have you on board. We do all sorts of different Q and A sessions, special content that's only for members. So go ahead. If you want to be a member, hit that join button. And I appreciate you for listening and for watching. And remember this, the truth isn't just serious, it's drop dead serious.