How do you think they took Nancy out? It looks like going out the back you go into that rough terrain.

There’s no way you could carry an elderly woman through that.

I don’t think that the uh back door was uh an exit.

I [clears throat] think it was an entry.

I think that’s how additional individuals may have been let into the home where the one individual went through the front.

But it’s it’s and I agree with the SWAT commander that they had to leave from the front of the home because of the blood that was found on the steps and on the porch.

Everyone got it wrong.

thumbnail

For 58 days, investigators, the media, the public, we all believed we understood how Nancy Guthrie was taken from her Tucson home.

The back doors were propped open.

The terrain behind her house was rough, overgrown, nearly impossible to navigate, so naturally, everyone assumed that’s how they got her out.

Through the back into the desert, away from the cameras and neighbors.

But a former FBI special agent just revealed the truth.

And it changes everything.

The back doors weren’t the exit.

They were the entry.

And that one detail, that one shift in understanding tells us this wasn’t one person acting alone.

This was multiple suspects, a coordinated operation, military level precision.

And Savannah Guthri’s brother recognized it immediately before anyone else.

Thought because of something he saw at the scene that morning that his intelligence training told him meant one thing.

Kidnapping for ransom.

I’m going to walk you through what we now know based on expert analysis from former law enforcement officials who have examined this case closely.

And I want to be very clear from the beginning that what I’m about to share with you is based entirely on verified information from credible sources.

Nothing I tell you today is speculation.

Everything comes from documented interviews, official statements, and expert analysis from people who have spent decades investigating cases exactly like this one.

Let me start by taking you back to the morning of February 1st, 2026.

That was the day that changed everything for Savannah Guthrie and her family.

Savannah, as many of you know, is the co-host of NBC’s Today Show.

She’s been a familiar face on morning television for years.

But on that Saturday morning in early February, she received a phone call that would turn her world upside down.

[clears throat] Her sister Annie was calling from Tucson, Arizona, where their mother Nancy lived alone in a home she had cherished for decades.

Savannah described that phone call in her first interview since her mother’s disappearance.

An interview that aired just days ago with her Today Show colleague, Hoda Codba.

And the detail in Savannah’s voice as she recounted that moment tells you everything you need to know about the shock and terror that gripped the family that morning.

Annie told Savannah that their mother was gone, not that she had wandered away, not that she was missing in the way you might think of an elderly person who stepped out and got confused.

Annie said she was gone and she was in a panic.

Savannah immediately told her sister to call 911, but Annie had already done that.

The police were already there.

And what they found at NY’s home that morning was not the scene of someone who had simply walked away.

It was the scene of something far more deliberate and far more troubling.

Savannah described how in those first chaotic minutes, the family tried to make sense of what they were seeing.

NY’s phone was still in the house.

Her purse was there.

All of her personal belongings remained exactly where they should have been.

And there was blood.

Blood on the front doorstep.

Blood on the porch.

The kind of evidence that tells you immediately that something violent had occurred.

But there was something else.

Something that seemed puzzling at first, but would later become one of the most important clues in understanding how Nancy was taken.

The back doors of NY’s home were propped open.

Not just unlocked, not just slightly a jar.

They were propped open.

And Savannah said that when the family first saw this, they thought perhaps paramedics had come in the night.

Perhaps Nancy had suffered some kind of medical episode and emergency responders had taken her out through the back of the house.

That would explain the open doors.

That would explain why she was gone.

But then they saw that everything else was still there.

And they knew that explanation didn’t make sense now for nearly 2 months.

That detail about the back doors being propped open has been part of the public record.

Savannah shared it in her interview.

Investigators have been aware of it from day one, but what wasn’t clear until very recently was what those prop doors actually meant.

Were they a sign that Nancy had been carried out the back of the house? Did the kidnappers enter through the back, take Nancy, and leave the same way? Was the back of the property the key to understanding how someone could remove an 84year-old woman with limited mobility from her home without being seen by neighbors or captured on surveillance cameras? To answer those questions, we need to understand the terrain around NY’s home.

And this is where the story gets very specific and very revealing.

Nancy lived in a neighborhood called Catalina Foothills and just north of Tucson.

It’s a beautiful area known for its desert landscape, its privacy, and its large lots that give homeowners space and seclusion.

The homes in this neighborhood are set back from the road.

They’re surrounded by natural desert vegetation.

Palo verde trees, saguarro cacti, creassote bushes, and thick brush that has grown for decades.

It’s the kind of landscape that people move to Arizona to experience.

Wide open spaces, stunning views of the mountains, and the feeling of living in nature.

But that same landscape that makes the neighborhood so desirable also makes it incredibly difficult terrain to navigate, especially at night, and especially if you’re trying to move through it while carrying another person.

A NewsNation correspondent named Brian Enon traveled to Tucson to investigate this case in person.

He spent weeks on the ground there talking to neighbors, examining the area, and trying to understand exactly what happened the night Nancy disappeared.

And one of the things he did was take a former Puma County SWAT commander named Bob Kger to the area behind NY’s home to assess whether it would even be possible to carry someone through that terrain.

What they found was striking.

Bob Kger spent nearly three decades with the Puma County Sheriff’s Office.

He led SWAT operations.

He knows that terrain better than almost anyone.

And when he walked the area behind NY’s home with Brian Enton, his assessment was immediate and unambiguous.

It would be highly improbable for anyone to carry Nancy Guthrie out through the back of that property.

Let me explain why.

First, there’s the vegetation.

Uh, when you look at the area from a distance, it might seem passible.

You can see pathways between the trees and bushes, but when you’re actually in it on foot, the reality is very different.

Every plant in the Sonoran Desert seems designed to keep you from moving through it.

There are thorns everywhere, cacti that will tear through clothing and skin, branches that catch and snag, and the ground itself is uneven, covered in rocks, some small, some large enough that you’d have to step carefully around them even in daylight.

Bob Kger pointed out that even walking through that terrain alone without carrying anything requires constant attention.

You’re watching where you step.

You’re pushing branches aside.

You’re navigating around obstacles.

And this was in the middle of the day in good light with a camera crew and a clear purpose.

Now imagine trying to do that at night in the dark while carrying a person who weighs approximately 150 lb.

A person who, according to Savannah, was in tremendous pain from a bad back and could barely walk to her mailbox on a good day.

A person who was taken in her pajamas without shoes, without any ability to assist in her own movement.

Bob Kger was very clear about this.

He said that carrying someone through that terrain would be loud.

it would be slow and it would almost certainly cause the person carrying her to get scratched, torn up by the vegetation, and possibly injured themselves.

He also pointed out something else that’s crucial.

The neighborhood has dogs, lots of dogs, and those dogs are not used to people moving through the brush behind their homes, especially not at 1 or 2 in the morning.

as if someone had tried to carry Nancy through that area in the middle of the night.

Every dog in the vicinity would have been barking.

Neighbors would have heard it.

People would have looked out their windows to see what was causing the commotion.

In fact, Brian Enton spoke with neighbors who told him that their dogs did react on the night Nancy disappeared.

One neighbor said their dogs wanted to go outside around the time that investigators believed Nancy was taken.

The dogs were looking in the direction of NY’s house.

They were alert to something, but the neighbor didn’t see anyone in the brush.

They didn’t hear the kind of prolonged disturbance that you would expect if someone were crashing through the desert vegetation while carrying a body.

So Bob Kger’s conclusion t based on his decades of experience and his knowledge of that specific terrain was that it was highly unlikely Nancy was carried out through the back.

He said that if the kidnappers had tried to use that route, they would have made so much noise, caused such a disturbance, and taken so much time that they almost certainly would have been seen or heard by someone.

And yet, nobody reported seeing or hearing anything like that.

Which suggests that whatever happened, it didn’t involve carrying Nancy Guthrie through the desert brush behind her home.

Now, that assessment from Bob Kger was already significant.

It told us that despite the back doors being propped open, the exit from the property was probably not through the back.

But it didn’t fully explain what those propped doors meant.

And that’s where the analysis from a former FBI special agent named Raymond Carr becomes absolutely critical to understanding this case.

Raymond Carr is a former FBI special agent who now serves as director of the Criminal Justice Institute at Wilmington University.

He has spent his career investigating kidnappings, abductions, and violent crimes.

He understands how these operations work.

He knows what evidence means.

And when he looked at the details of Nancy Guthri’s case, particularly the information about the back doors being propped open, he saw something that Bob Kger’s terrain analysis had hinted at, but that needed to be stated explicitly.

Raymond Carr said very directly that he does not believe the back door was an exit.

He believes it was an entry.

Let me say that again because it’s the key to everything.

The back doors being propped open did not mean that Nancy was carried out through the back of the house.

It meant that someone came in through the back of the house.

And the reason those doors were propped open was to allow additional people to enter the home while someone else was approaching from the front.

This is a completely different understanding of what happened that night and it changes the entire picture of how this crime was committed.

According to Raymond Carr’s analysis, what likely happened was this.

One individual approached the front of NY’s home.

We know this because the FBI released surveillance footage from NY’s doorbell camera showing a masked person at the front door.

That person was wearing a ski mask, gloves, dark clothing, and a backpack.

They were armed with a holstered gun visible on their waist.

And the footage shows them tampering with the camera, apparently trying to disable it or block its view.

But according to Raymond Carr, that person at the front door was not working alone.

While that individual was at the front of the house dealing with the camera and preparing to enter, other people were coming in through the back.

The back doors had been propped open specifically to allow those additional people to enter without needing to force their way in, without needing to break a lock, and without creating any noise or delay that would give Nancy time to react or call for help.

Think about what this means operationally.

If you’re planning to abduct someone from their home, you need to move quickly once you’re inside.

You need to control the person, neutralize any ability they have to resist or call for help and get them out of the house before neighbors notice anything wrong or before any alarm systems can be triggered.

If you’re doing this alone, that’s a very difficult task, especially if the person you’re targeting is elderly, might be confused or frightened, and might make noise or resist.

But if you have multiple people, the operation becomes much easier.

Some people enter through the front, others come in through the back.

You control different parts of the house simultaneously.

You surround the person.

You eliminate their ability to escape or summon help.

And then you move them out quickly using the exit point that makes the most sense given the circumstances.

And according to Raymond Carr, that exit point was the front of the house, not the back.

We know this because of the blood.

Investigators found blood on the front porch and on the front steps of NY’s home.

That blood was confirmed to be NY’s.

And the presence of that blood at the front of the house tells us that Nancy left through the front door, not through the back, where the terrain would have made movement slow and loud and extremely difficult.

She was taken out the front where there was pavement, where a vehicle could be waiting close by and where the kidnappers could move quickly from the house to the car without having to navigate obstacles.

Raymond Carr was very emphatic about this.

He said there is no doubt in his mind that they went out the front.

The blood evidence makes that clear and the fact that the back doors were propped open combined with the difficulty of the terrain behind the house.

Arro tells him that those doors served a different purpose.

They were the entry point for additional kidnappers, not the exit point for Nancy.

Now, this raises an obvious question.

If multiple people were involved in taking Nancy Guthrie, why is that significant? What does it tell us about who did this and how it was planned? Raymond Carr addressed this directly.

He said that one person could not have pulled this off.

And when you think about the specifics of what would have been required, his reasoning makes perfect sense.

Nancy Guthrie was 84 years old.

She had limited mobility.

She was in pain from a bad back.

On a good day, Savannah said her mother could walk to the mailbox to get the mail, but most days she couldn’t even do that.

She needed help.

She moved slowly.

She was not someone who could be easily controlled or moved by a single person, especially if she was frightened or resisting.

And even if she wasn’t resisting, even if she was compliant out of fear, the physical act of moving her from her bedroom through the house and out to a vehicle would require at least two people.

One person alone trying to carry or support a 150lb individual who cannot walk steadily would struggle.

It would take time.

It would be awkward.

It would leave the kidnapper vulnerable to being seen or heard.

But with two or more people, the operation becomes manageable.

One person can control Nancy while another prepares the exit route.

Multiple people can lift and carry her if necessary.

The coordination allows them to move faster to cover more ground and to reduce the time they’re exposed to potential witnesses.

And the fact that the back doors were propped open suggests that the kidnappers thought through this operation in advance.

They planned for multiple entry points.

They planned for multiple people to be involved.

This was not an impulsive crime.

This was something that required thought, preparation, and coordination.

And there’s another piece of evidence that supports this interpretation.

Savannah Guthrie mentioned in her interview that her brother Cameron immediately said on the day Nancy was reported missing that this was a kidnapping for ransom, not a disappearance, not a case of wandering off, not a medical emergency, a kidnapping for ransom.

And he said this before any ransom notes had arrived.

The first ransom notes didn’t come until 2 or 3 days after Nancy disappeared.

So, how did Cameron know on day one that this was a kidnapping for ransom? Raymond Carr found this detail fascinating and he raised it as something that investigators should be paying close attention to.

Cameron Guthrie has a background in the military.

He worked in intelligence and according to Savannah, when Cameron arrived at the scene and saw what had happened, he immediately recognized what kind of crime this was.

He saw something in the scene, in the evidence, in the way the house looked that told him this wasn’t random, this wasn’t opportunistic, this was planned, this was operational, and it was done for a specific purpose, which was to extract a ransom from the family.

Raymond Carr said that when he heard Savannah mention this, it raised a red flag for him.

Not a red flag suggesting suspicion of the family, but a red flag telling him that Cameron saw something significant, something that someone with his training would recognize.

And the question Raymond Carr posed was, “What did Cameron see? What was there in that scene that told a trained intelligence officer that this was a kidnapping for ransom before any ransom demand had been made?” The answer, based on everything we now know, is probably this.

Cameron saw the staging of the scene.

He saw the back doors propped open, indicating deliberate preparation for multiple entry points.

He saw the evidence of coordination between the front and back of the house, the kind of tactical planning that doesn’t happen by accident.

He saw the blood at the front, suggesting a controlled exit rather than chaos or panic.

He saw that NY’s belongings were still there, ruling out robbery as a motive.

And he put all of that together and recognized the operational signature of a planned abduction.

This is what intelligence training does.

It teaches you to recognize patterns.

How targets are selected based on value and vulnerability.

How operations are staged to minimize risk and maximize control.

How teams coordinate their movements to achieve objectives efficiently.

Cameron would have seen the multiple entry points and understood immediately that this wasn’t one person acting impulsively.

This was a team, a coordinated unit working together with specific roles.

He would have seen the camera tampering and recognized operational awareness.

The kidnappers knew about the surveillance system.

They planned for it.

They took steps to neutralize it.

That’s not random.

That’s reconnaissance.

That’s planning.

He would have seen the selection of the target itself.

Nancy Guthrie, the mother of a nationally known television personality.

Someone whose family might have access to significant financial resources.

Someone who could be taken without massive security presence.

Someone vulnerable yet valuable.

That’s not opportunistic.

That’s target selection based on calculated assessment of risk versus potential reward.

And he would have recognized all of this within minutes of walking into that scene.

Not because he’s clairvoyant, not because he was guessing, but because he’s trained to see operations for what they are, to recognize the signatures of planning, coordination, and purpose.

Think about what that means for Cameron personally.

He’s spent his career in military intelligence.

He’s trained to recognize these operational patterns in briefing rooms, in foreign conflicts, in case studies analyzed from a safe distance.

But this time, it wasn’t an operation halfway around the world.

It wasn’t a file on someone else’s desk.

It was his mother.

His mother’s home.

His mother’s blood on the front steps.

And his training told him exactly what kind of danger she was in before anyone else knew.

Before any ransom demand confirmed it, just him alone with that knowledge, unable to do anything but wait and hope that whoever took her wanted money, not something worse.

This wasn’t someone breaking in to steal valuables.

This wasn’t a random attack.

This was a coordinated operation designed to take a specific person for a specific purpose.

And that purpose, based on who NY’s daughter is and what kind of resources the family might have access to, was ransom.

Now, we know that ransom notes did eventually arrive.

Multiple notes, in fact, were sent to various media outlets and to the family.

And Savannah addressed this in her interview.

She said that there were many notes and she believes that most of them were not real.

There are sadly people in this world who see a tragedy like this and send fake ransom notes either as a cruel prank or in some misguided attempt to insert themselves into the story.

But Savannah said that two of the notes, the two that the family responded to, she believes were real.

She believes those came from the people who actually took her mother.

The FBI has not confirmed which notes, if any, are considered authentic.

But the fact that the family responded to two specific notes tells us that there was something in those messages that convinced them and likely convinced investigators that these were genuine communications from the kidnappers.

And the fact that Cameron predicted a kidnapping for Ransom before any notes arrived suggests that the evidence at the scene supported that theory from the very beginning.

Let me step back for a moment and talk about what all of this means for the investigation and for our understanding of what happened to Nancy Guthrie.

We now have a picture of the crime that is much clearer than it was even a week ago.

We know that Nancy was taken by multiple people, not one.

We know that they entered through both the front and the back of her home tow with the back doors being propped open to allow silent entry for additional kidnappers.

We know that Nancy was taken out through the front of the house where her blood was found on the porch and steps, suggesting she was injured during the abduction or the exit.

We know that she was in her pajamas and had no shoes on, which tells us she was taken directly from her bed or from inside the house with no time to prepare or resist.

And we know that this was planned in advance.

The coordination required to have multiple people entering from different directions.

The presence of the person at the front door who was tampering with the surveillance camera, the propped doors at the back.

All of this points to an operation that was thought through ahead of time.

This was not someone who decided on the spur of the moment to break into a house and see what they could take.

This was a deliberate, coordinated effort to abduct Nancy Guthrie specifically.

But here’s what we still don’t know.

We don’t know who these people are.

58 days into this investigation, no suspect has been publicly named.

No arrest has been made.

The FBI has released images of the person who was captured on NY’s doorbell camera.

But despite thousands of tips coming in from the public, that person has not been identified.

Or if they have been identified, law enforcement has not shared that information publicly.

We also don’t know where Nancy is.

The family is offering a $1 million reward for information leading to her recovery.

The FBI is offering an additional $100,000 for information about her whereabouts or information that leads to an arrest and conviction.

And yet, despite these substantial rewards, despite the national attention this case has received, despite the efforts of professional investigators and citizen searchers who have combed the desert around Tucson looking for any sign of Nancy, she has not been found.

and we don’t know why she was targeted.

Yes, the working theory is that this was a kidnapping for ransom.

And that theory makes sense given who NY’s daughter is.

Savannah Guthrie is a nationally known television personality.

She has a high-profile career and kidnappers might have assumed that the family would have access to significant financial resources and would be willing to pay to get Nancy back safely.

But we don’t know for certain that ransom was the motive.

We don’t know if there was some other reason Nancy was targeted.

And until we know who did this, we won’t have a complete answer to the question of why.

Imagine being Savannah right now.

Imagine waking up every single morning for 58 days and the first thought that hits you before you’re even fully awake is that your mother is gone.

Not knowing if she’s alive.

Not knowing if she’s suffering.

Not knowing if today will be the day someone finally calls with answers or the day you get the news you’ve been dreading.

and then having to get up, get dressed, and prepare to return to national television to sit at that desk on the Today Show and smile and be present for millions of viewers while carrying that weight inside you.

That’s Savannah’s reality right now.

And no amount of professional training, no amount of public composure makes that bearable.

What we do know is that the investigation is still active.

Law enforcement is still following leads and the family is still desperate for answers.

Savannah made this very clear in her interview with Hodokadba.

She said that her family is in agony.

They cannot breathe.

They cannot live.

They cannot go forward.

They need to know what happened to their mother.

They need to find her.

They need to bring her home.

And they are begging anyone who knows anything, anyone who saw anything, anyone who has any information at all, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant, to come forward.

And there’s a specific reason the family is asking people to focus on certain dates.

In their most recent public statement, Savannah and her siblings, the Annie and Cameron, asked the community to search their memories and review any camera footage, text messages, journal notes, or conversations from two specific time frames.

The first is January 31st and the early morning hours of February 1st.

That’s the time frame when Nancy disappeared.

But the second time frame they mentioned is interesting.

They asked people to review anything from the late evening of January 11th.

Why January 11th? That date is 20 days before Nancy disappeared.

And the reason the family is asking about that date is because investigators believe the person or people who took Nancy may have been at her home before the night of the abduction.

The FBI released several images from NY’s doorbell camera.

Most of those images show the person wearing a backpack and gloves, son, the way they appeared on the night of February 1st.

But one image shows the person without a backpack.

And sources have told media outlets that this image may have been captured on a different date, possibly January 11th, suggesting that the suspect came to NY’s home earlier, perhaps to surveil the property to plan the operation or to test the security systems.

The Puma County Sheriff’s Office has been somewhat cautious about confirming this.

Sheriff Chris Nanos said that Google, which owns the Nest camera system that Nancy had installed, initially told investigators that one of the images could have been from January 11th.

But then Google backtracked and said they couldn’t definitively determine the date of that particular image.

So, there’s some uncertainty.

But the fact that investigators have been going doortodoor in NY’s neighborhood, asking specifically about January 11th, tells us that they believe something significant may have happened on that date.

And the family, clearly working in coordination with law enforcement, is asking the public to help fill in that gap.

This brings me to something that Raymond Carr, the former FBI agent, pointed out about Savannah’s interview.

He said he believes the interview was done in collaboration with the FBI, that it was not just Savannah deciding to sit down and talk about her mother.

It was a coordinated effort between the family and law enforcement to get a specific message out to the public at a specific time.

And the timing of the interview supports that theory.

Savannah’s interview aired almost exactly 2 months after Nancy disappeared.

2 months is a significant milestone in a case like this.

It’s long enough that the initial wave of tips and leads has been followed up on.

It’s long enough that investigators have had time to analyze evidence, conduct interviews, and develop theories about what happened.

But it’s not so long that public interest has completely faded.

People are still paying attention.

The case is still in the news.

and an interview with Savannah returning to the public eye for the first time since her mother’s disappearance is guaranteed to generate attention and potentially shake loose new information.

Raymond Carr said that when he watched the interview, it felt scripted to him.

Not in the sense that Savannah was being dishonest or reading from a script, but in the sense that the questions and answers seemed carefully thought out.

The information that was revealed, like the detail about the back doors being propped open, seemed like it was being shared intentionally with a purpose.

And that purpose, according to Raymond Carr, was to generate tips.

To give the public new information that might jog someone’s memory, to make someone who saw something or who knows something realize that what they know could be important.

And there’s another reason the timing of the interview makes sense.

Savannah is returning to the Today Show on April 6th.

That’s Easter Monday.

That’s less than a week from now.

After nearly 2 months away from her job, dealing with the trauma and uncertainty of her mother’s disappearance, Savannah has decided it’s time to go back to work.

She told Hoda that it’s hard to imagine doing it because the Today Show is such a place of joy and lightness, and she can’t come back and pretend to be something she’s not.

But she also can’t not come back because the show is her family.

She said she believes it’s part of her purpose right now to return.

But you can’t return to national television after your mother has been kidnapped without addressing it publicly first.

You can’t just show up one morning and say, “I’m back.

Let’s talk about the weather and the latest news.

” There has to be some acknowledgement of what you’ve been through.

some closure or at least some way of saying this is where I am right now.

I’m still in pain.

I still don’t have answers, but I’m going to try to move forward with my life while still fighting for my mother.

That’s what the interview with Hoda provided.

It gave Savannah a chance to speak directly to the public about what she’s been experiencing.

It gave her a chance to ask for help and it gave her a way to return to the Today Show next week with the understanding that everyone knows where she’s been and what she’s dealing with.

It was in that sense both a personal statement and a strategic move coordinated with the FBI to keep attention on the case.

Now, I want to talk about the investigation itself and where things stand after 58 days.

Because while we’ve learned a lot about how Nancy was taken, we haven’t seen much public progress in terms of identifying who took her or where she is now.

And that’s frustrating for everyone who’s been following this case.

It’s frustrating for the family.

Obviously, it’s frustrating for the community in Tucson, which has rallied around the Guthrie family and wants to see justice done.

And it’s frustrating for people around the country who have been captivated by this case and want to see it resolved.

But the reality of investigations like this is that they move slowly.

And they move even more slowly when they’re being conducted carefully with attention to detail and with the goal of building a prosecutable case rather than just making an arrest for the sake of making an arrest.

The FBI and the Puma County Sheriff’s Office are working together on this case.

They have analyzed DNA evidence found at the scene.

They have reviewed surveillance footage from NY’s camera and from cameras in the neighborhood.

They have interviewed hundreds of people.

They have followed up on thousands of tips and they are still actively investigating, but they haven’t named a suspect publicly.

And there are good reasons why they might not do that even if they have someone in mind.

Naming a suspect publicly puts that person on notice.

It gives them a chance to flee, to destroy evidence, or to coordinate with accompllices.

It also opens law enforcement up to legal liability if they name someone who turns out to be innocent.

So, unless investigators are ready to make an arrest unless they have enough evidence to charge someone, they typically won’t name that person publicly.

The fact that no one has been named doesn’t mean investigators don’t have leads.

It doesn’t mean they don’t have suspects.

It just means they’re not ready to go public with that information yet.

And given that this is a kidnapping case, where the victim is still missing and where the primary goal is to recover Nancy alive, investigators may be being especially cautious about what they reveal.

They don’t want to do anything that might endanger Nancy or that might cause the kidnappers to panic and do something irreversible.

At the same time, there are reasons to be concerned about the pace of this investigation.

The Pima County Sheriff’s Office has been the subject of significant criticism during this case.

Sheriff Chris Nanos, who is leading the investigation, has been under pressure from multiple directions.

The union representing deputies in his department passed a no confidence vote calling for his resignation.

The Pima County Board of Supervisors voted to require Nanos to submit reports under oath after records revealed disciplinary issues from a previous job and discrepancies on his resume.

And there’s an active recall effort trying to remove him from office.

On top of that, a former Puma County Sheriff, Dr.

Richard Carmona, who also served as United States Surgeon General, publicly stated that the crime scene in NY’s case was permanently corrupted.

He was referring specifically to an incident where a pizza delivery driver was allowed to drive across NY’s front lawn during the investigation, potentially contaminating evidence.

Carmona said that once a crime scene is corrupted like that, you cannot reconstitute it.

The integrity of the evidence is compromised and that makes it harder to build a case that will hold up in court.

These are serious criticisms from people who understand law enforcement and criminal investigations.

And they raise legitimate questions about whether this case has been handled as well as it should have been.

At the same time, we know that the FBI is involved, and the FBI has resources and expertise that go far beyond what a local sheriff’s department can provide.

So, there’s reason to hope that despite any missteps early on, the investigation is still moving forward in a professional and thorough manner.

What we can say with certainty is that the family is not giving up.

Savannah, Annie, and Cameron have made it clear that they will do whatever it takes to find their mother.

They’ve offered a massive reward.

They’ve gone public with their plea for help.

They’ve worked with investigators to release information and generate tips.

And they’re prepared to keep fighting for as long as it takes.

In her interview, Savannah talked about her mother in the present tense.

She said, “My mom is so incredible.

” Not was is.

She talked about her mother’s strength, her faith, her quiet resilience.

She talked about how Nancy raised three children alone after their father died when Savannah was just 16 years old.

She talked about how much her mother loved her home in Tucson, how it was her safe haven, the place where all their memories were made.

And she talked about how unbearable it is to see that home violated.

To think about the terror her mother must have felt when strangers came into her bedroom in the middle of the night.

But Savannah also talked about hope.

She said that her family believes in prayer.

They believe in faith.

They believe that somehow someway they will find answers.

And they’re asking everyone who’s watching, everyone who’s paying attention to this case to believe with them, to keep NY’s face in their minds, to keep looking, to keep sharing information, to refuse to let this case fade into the background.

Because that’s what happens in cases like this if we’re not careful.

The initial shock and outrage gives way to other news, other stories, other tragedies that demand our attention.

And gradually, unless there’s a breakthrough, unless there’s an arrest or a body found, the case slips from the headlines.

It becomes a cold case, and the family is left to suffer in private without the pressure of public attention to keep investigators motivated and to keep tips coming in.

The Guthrie family doesn’t want that to happen.

They want NY’s case to stay in the public eye.

Say they want people to keep talking about it, keep thinking about it, keep looking for answers.

And they want anyone who knows anything to understand that there are no consequences for coming forward.

There’s only the opportunity to do the right thing to help bring an elderly woman home to her family.

To help bring closure to a daughter who just wants to know what happened to her mother.

If you have information about this case, if you were in the Tucson area on January 31st or February 1st, if you saw anything unusual, any vehicles that didn’t belong, any people who seemed out of place, any activity that struck you as odd, please call the FBI.

But let me be even more specific about what might be important.

If you saw multiple vehicles parked together in that neighborhood when that’s unusual.

If you saw someone walking near NY’s home late at night who didn’t look like they belonged there.

If a neighbor mentioned something odd in the days before Nancy disappeared that you dismissed at the time, but that’s been nagging at you since.

If you remember a license plate number, even just part of one, if you saw someone at a gas station or convenience store who seemed nervous, kept looking around, was with other people who made you uncomfortable.

If you know someone whose behavior changed after February 1st, someone who suddenly seemed to have money they shouldn’t have had, someone who left town abruptly, someone who’s been acting strange for the last 2 months, someone who stopped coming to work or stopped showing up to regular commitments, someone who mentioned the case and seemed to know details they shouldn’t have known.

Any of these details, no matter how small they seem to you, could be exactly what investigators need to break this case open.

The number is 1-800 call FBI.

That’s 1-800225-55324.

You can also call the Puma County Sheriff’s Department at 520-351-4900.

Or you can submit a tip online at tips.

fbi.

gov.

The FBI is offering a $100,000 reward for information that leads to finding Nancy or that results in an arrest and conviction.

In this case, the family is offering up to $1 million for information that leads to NY’s recovery.

These are substantial rewards, and they’re being offered because the family is desperate.

They need help.

They need someone to come forward.

They need someone to do the right thing.

And if you’re someone who knows something, but you’re afraid to come forward, I want you to hear this directly.

Savannah said in her interview that she understands fear.

She understands that someone might be afraid to get involved, afraid of retaliation, afraid of being wrong, but she’s begging people to come forward anyway.

She said that even if you just know that someone has been acting strange for the last 7 or 8 weeks, even if it’s just that, it could be important.

Someone knows something.

And that something, no matter how small it seems, could be the key to bringing Nancy home.

Let me bring this back to where we started, which is the revelation about the back doors.

Because I think that detail, more than anything else that’s come out in the last week, shows us how much we still have to learn about what happened that night.

For two months, people assumed the back doors being propped open meant the kidnappers carried Nancy out through the back of the house.

It seemed logical.

It seemed like the explanation that fit the evidence.

But when experts looked at the terrain, when they examined what it would actually take to move a person through that landscape, when they considered the noise and the time and the difficulty involved, they realized that explanation didn’t work.

And then when Raymond Carr applied his experience as an FBI agent to the evidence, he saw something different.

He saw a coordinated operation.

He saw multiple entry points being used simultaneously.

He saw the back doors serving a purpose that had nothing to do with Nancy leaving the house and everything to do with kidnappers entering it.

And that one shift in perspective, that one realization that we had the doors backwards changes the entire investigation.

It tells us we’re looking for multiple suspects, not one.

It tells us this was planned, not impulsive.

It tells us the operational sophistication was higher than people initially thought.

And it makes you wonder what else we might be getting wrong.

What other assumptions are we making that don’t hold up under scrutiny? What other evidence is sitting there waiting for someone with the right expertise to look at it the right way and see what it really means? This is why investigations take time.

This is why experts matter.

And this is why the family’s decision to do that interview with Hoda to share new details, to work with the FBI to generate new tips was so important.

Because every new piece of information, every new perspective, every new person who comes forward with something they saw or heard brings us closer to understanding what happened and closer to finding Nancy.

58 days is a long time to wait for answers.

It’s an agonizing amount of time for a family that doesn’t know if their mother is alive or where she is or what she’s suffering.

But it’s not too long.

cases have been solved after months, after years, after decades.

Nancy Guthri’s case can still be solved.

The people who did this can still be found.

Nancy can still be brought home.

But it’s going to take all of us.

It’s going to take investigators doing their jobs with skill and dedication.

It’s going to take the media keeping this story alive.

It’s going to take the public staying engaged, staying vigilant, and coming forward when they have information.

And it’s going to take people like you watching this video right now understanding that this isn’t just a news story.

This is a real family going through real suffering.

This is an 84 yearear-old woman who should be safe in her home, surrounded by the people who love her, living out her days in peace.

Instead, she’s been gone for almost 2 months.

And every day that passes without answers is another day of agony for Savannah, for Annie, for Cameron, for NY’s grandchildren, and for everyone who knew and loved her.

So, I’m asking you to do something.

Share this video.

Share NY’s story.

Keep her face in the public eye.

And if you know anything, anything at all, make the call.

Because 58 days ago, multiple suspects walked through the back door of Nancy Guthri’s home.

They had planned this, coordinated it.

They took an 84year-old grandmother from her bedroom while she slept, carried her out through the front door where her blood marked the steps, put her in a vehicle, and disappeared.

Those people are still out there, but so is the truth.

And with your help, with someone finding the courage to make that call, the truth can finally come to light.

Nancy Guthrie deserves to come home.

Her family deserves answers and whoever did this deserves to be held accountable.

If you know something, make the call.

1800 call FBI.

Thank you for watching.

Thank you for caring about NY’s story and thank you for refusing to let her be forgotten.