Nancy Guthrie: FBI Expert Says Nancy RECOGNIZED Her Kidnapper – That’s Why She Was Taken cc

We only know about 5% of the facts of this case.

Are you saying that silence from authorities could be encouraging? Absolutely.

And while some leads have gone cold, investigators say this is far from a cold case.

A front porch.

Tucson, Arizona.

February 1st, 2026.

Around 200 a.m., an 84year-old woman stands at her door, confusion written across her face.

Someone is outside in the darkness at an hour when no one should be knocking.

She hesitates, her hand on the door knob.

Should she open it? She peers through the Diablo row iron security gate, through the reinforced glass, into the shadows beyond.

And in that split second, everything changes.

A face not masked anymore.

Or maybe the mask slipped.

Or maybe she saw past it, recognize the eyes, the build, the way this person moved.

But she knows her eyes widen not in fear, in recognition.

I know you.

And the person on the other side sees it, too.

Sees the moment her brain connects the dots.

She knows who I am.

This wasn’t supposed to happen.

Fear floods through him.

Not through her.

I threw him.

Because now there’s a witness.

Someone who can name him.

Someone who can identify him.

And in the space of three heartbeats, a decision is made.

She can’t stay here.

She can’t go back inside.

She has to come with me right now.

Former FBI special agent Johnny Grusing, the investigator who helped bring the Golden State Killer to justice, looked at the evidence in the Nancy Guthrie case and saw something others missed.

This wasn’t random.

This wasn’t about ransom.

This was about 3 seconds of eye contact on a front porch.

3 seconds that changed everything because Nancy Guthrie recognized the person at her door.

And that person had no choice but to make her disappear.

Nancy Guthrie.

The recognition theory.

What happens when a victim knows too much? Before we dive into the theory that could crack this case wide open, you need to understand who Nancy Guthrie was.

Not just as Savannah Guthri’s mother, not just as a statistic in a missing person’s case, but as a person, a woman with a life, a routine, relationships, a community that loved her.

Nancy Guthrie was 84 years old when she disappeared.

But she wasn’t frail.

She wasn’t isolated.

She was active, engaged, and deeply connected to her family and her community in Tucson.

She lived alone in a beautiful home in the Catalina Foothills area.

One of the most exclusive neighborhoods in Tucson.

A quiet upscale community where crime is almost non-existent.

Where neighbors know each other, where people feel safe enough to leave garage doors open and walk their dogs at night.

Nancy was a widow.

She had three adult children.

Savannah, the Today Show co-anchor known to millions of Americans.

Annie, who lived nearby in Tucson with her husband, Tomaso, and another daughter.

She was close to her family, incredibly close.

On January 31st, 2026, the day she disappeared.

Nancy spent time with Annie.

Earlier in the day, she had taken an Uber from her home to Annie’s house.

That Uber ride may be the last video of Nancy Guthrie alive, smiling, talking, going about her normal day.

The FBI has obtained that footage.

They’ve reviewed it frame by frame, looking for anything unusual, anyone who might have been following her.

Any sign that something was wrong, but from what we know, it was just a normal Uber ride.

Nancy getting into the car, making small talk with the driver, maybe arriving at her daughter’s house for a normal family visit.

Later that evening, no around 9:30 or 1000 p.

m.

, Annie’s husband, Tomaso, drove Nancy home.

He dropped her off at her residence in the Catalina foothills shortly before 1000 p.

m.

Nancy walked inside.

She was tired.

It had been a long day.

She was 84 years old.

She needed her rest, her medication, her routine.

Tomaso drove away.

He was the last family member to see Nancy alive.

She had a pacemaker, a Medronic device that monitored her heart, and synced to her phone via Bluetooth.

She needed daily medication.

She had appointments scheduled, plans with family, a life she expected to continue living.

And at some point after 1000 p.

m.

, Nancy Guthrie went about her normal evening routine.

But somewhere between 1000 p.

m.

and 2:30 a.

m.

, something interrupted that routine.

Someone came to her door, someone she may have recognized, and Nancy Guthrie was never seen again.

Before we explore this theory in depth, if cases like this interest you, where expert analysis from former FBI agents can completely change how we understand what happened, hit that subscribe button and turn on notifications.

Here at Crime Uncovered, we don’t just repeat the same information you’ve already heard.

We bring you expert insights, investigative analysis, theories from people who’ve actually solved cases like this one.

Every detail matters.

Every theory deserves examination.

Subscribe now because this case is far from over.

Now, let’s talk about the man behind this theory.

Because understanding who Johnny Gruing is will help you understand why his analysis carries so much weight in law enforcement circles.

Johnny Gruing isn’t a talking head.

He’s not a podcaster speculating from his basement.

He’s not an armchair detective piecing together theories from Reddit threads.

Johnny Grusing is a former FBI special agent with a career that reads like a crime thriller.

He worked violent crimes for the FBI, sexual assaults, kidnappings, homicides, cold cases that had gone unsolved for decades, gathering dust in evidence rooms while families waited for answers.

He was one of the lead investigators in the Golden State Killer case.

Joseph James D’Angelo, a serial killer and rapist who terrorized California for years.

For decades, D’Angelo evaded capture until Grusing and his team used investigative genetic genealogy to track him down.

The same technology that’s now being explored in the Nancy Guthrie case with the DNA samples sent to the Florida lab.

Grusing has seen it all.

the mistakes criminals make when they panic.

The patterns they follow when they think they’re being clever.

The ways investigations go right and the ways they fall completely apart because of one missed detail.

And when Gru looks at a case, he’s not guessing.

He’s analyzing behavior, evidence, timeline, forensics, human nature under pressure.

He’s applying decades of experience to a puzzle that on the surface doesn’t make sense.

Because here’s the thing about the Nancy Guthrie case that bothers Gruing.

It doesn’t fit any of the usual patterns.

It’s not a typical kidnapping for ransom.

No one directly contacted the Guthrie family demanding money.

The family offered $1 million.

The FBI added $100,000.

An anonymous donor added another $100,000.

That’s $1.

2 million on the table, and no one has come forward to claim it.

It’s not a typical burglary gone wrong.

There’s no evidence of theft, no reports that the house was ransacked.

It’s not a typical home invasion.

The security gate, a heavy Diablo rot iron barrier designed to prevent forced entry, wasn’t broken or damaged.

So, what is it? Gruising believes it’s something that started as one thing and became something else entirely in the span of a few seconds.

A confrontation that spiraled out of control the moment Nancy recognized the person at her door.

But Gruing is careful.

He’s been in law enforcement long enough to know the dangers of overconfidence.

As he told Fox News, “It’s hard to be an expert in human behavior because it’s so unique to that person.

I’m just trying to use the experiences of different cases and trying to apply any sort of logic to this in the hopes that someone from the public who has thought it might be someone they know, whether it’s a family member or a co-orker or friend or associate, can put that one puzzle piece together.

Grusing isn’t claiming to know exactly what happened.

He’s not accusing anyone.

He’s not declaring the case solved.

He’s operating off publicly available information.

And he’s offering a theory in the hopes that it might trigger someone’s memory.

Maybe someone out there knows a person who fits this profile.

Someone who had access to NY’s neighborhood.

Someone who might have had a reason to be at her door that night.

Mar.

Someone whose behavior changed after February 1st.

Grusing is putting this theory out there because he believes the answer is closer than people think.

It’s not in Mexico.

It’s not in another state.

It’s local.

It’s someone in the community.

Someone Nancy would recognize.

And that someone is still out there.

Let’s reconstruct the timeline of Nancy Guthri’s last known hours.

Early afternoon, January 31st.

Nancy takes an Uber to Annie’s house.

The FBI has this footage, possibly the last video of Nancy alive outside of the doorbell camera.

Evening 9:30 to 10 p.

m.

Tomaso drives Nancy home.

He drops her off shortly before 10:00 p.

m.

He’s the last family member to see her alive.

10:00 p.

m.

to 1:47 a.

m.

We don’t know exactly what Nancy did during these hours.

Presumably, she went about her normal routine, changed clothes, took medication, went to bed.

According to Savannah Guthri’s public statement, Nancy was taken in the dark of night from her bed.

This suggests Nancy was asleep when something brought her to the front door.

1:47 a.

m.

February 1st.

NY’s doorbell camera disconnects.

The FBI released footage showing a masked figure on the porch, black ski mask, gloves, dark jacket, gun holster on the front of his body carrying a 25 L Ozark Trail backpack sold at Walmart.

The figure tampers with the camera.

At 1:47 a.

m.

, it goes dark.

1:47 a.

m.

to 2:30 a.

m.

This is the critical window, approximately 40 minutes.

Investigators believe the masked figure spent this time inside NY’s house.

40 minutes suggests something other than a quick kidnapping or burglary.

It suggests loss of control, indecision, desperation.

Ear Gruing believes this is when the original plan fell apart completely.

2:30 a.

m.

NY’s pacemaker disconnects from her phone.

Her Medronic pacemaker was synced via Bluetooth.

When it disconnected, it likely means she was moved far enough away that the connection severed.

This is the moment investigators believe Nancy left her property.

11 a.

m.

Nancy doesn’t show up for church.

Her family finds her house unlocked.

Nancy is gone.

Blood is found on the front porch.

DNA testing confirms it’s NY’s blood.

By 11:00 a.

m.

, Nancy has been missing for more than eight hours.

And 48 days later, she still hasn’t been found.

Here’s the piece of evidence that changed everything for Gruing.

The blood on NY’s front porch, not inside the house, on the porch.

Sheriff Chris Nanos confirmed it publicly.

DNA tests verified it was NY’s blood.

Sar blood spatter droplets, a pattern that tells a story of violence.

But authorities have not released any information about blood being found inside NY’s home.

No reports of blood in the bedroom.

No reports anywhere inside.

The blood is outside.

For gruesome, this tells a specific story.

Nancy wasn’t attacked in her bed.

She wasn’t ambushed while sleeping.

She went to the door.

She either opened it or stepped outside onto the porch.

And that’s where the confrontation occurred.

Think about the layout.

NY’s front door has a Diablo row iron security gate.

Heavy, reinforced, designed to prevent forced entry.

You can’t easily break through it.

You’d need tools, force, time, noise.

But there’s no evidence the gate was damaged, which means Nancy opened it herself.

Why would an 84year-old woman open her door at 2:00 in the morning? Grusing’s theory, she was lured.

Someone called to her.

Someone knocked.

Someone said something that made her feel safe enough to approach.

Maybe it was a voice she recognized.

Maybe someone claiming to need help.

Maybe someone pretending to be law enforcement.

But something made Nancy walk to that door.

And when she got there, when she looked at the person on the other side, she saw something that changed everything.

A face she recognized.

Gruing believes that moment of recognition caused the violence on the porch, not a premeditated attack.

Fear, loss of control.

A split-second decision made in desperation.

The person realized Nancy knew who he was, and he couldn’t let her go back inside.

He couldn’t let her pick up the phone and identify him.

He had seconds to decide, and blood was shed.

NY’s blood.

From that moment on, taking her was the only option he had left.

Let’s go back to that afternoon.

The Uber ride.

The FBI obtained that footage.

They’ve reviewed it carefully.

Why? Because it may be the last video of Nancy Guthrie alive, smiling, talking, going about her day with no idea what was about to happen.

The FBI isn’t releasing that footage, but they have it, and they’re looking for something.

Was anyone following NY’s Uber when she left her house that afternoon? Was anyone watching, taking note of her schedule, confirming she wouldn’t be home? Because if Grusing’s theory is correct, if Nancy was targeted by someone she knew, then that someone would need to know when she’d be home, when she’d be alone.

Uh, that afternoon Uber ride might have been the moment someone confirmed their window of opportunity.

Nancy leaves around 2:00 p.

m.

She’ll be gone for hours.

She’ll come back late, tired, ready for bed.

That’s when I make my move.

We don’t know if that’s what happened.

The FBI hasn’t said, but they have that footage, and they’re looking at it for a reason because it’s the last time we know for certain that Nancy Guthrie was safe.

Hours later, everything changed.

Let’s walk through Gruing’s theory step by step.

It’s approximately 1:50 a.

m.

Nancy is asleep in her bed.

Then something happens.

A knock.

The doorbell.

A voice calling out.

Nancy wakes up groggy, disoriented.

Who could be at her door at this hour? At this point, Nancy has choices.

She could ignore it.

She could call 911.

She could wait to see if the person goes away.

But she doesn’t do that.

She gets up.

She goes to the door.

Why? Grusing believes whoever was outside said something specific that made Nancy feel safe enough to approach.

Maybe a voice she recognized.

Nancy, it’s me.

I need help.

Maybe someone claiming to be law enforcement.

Mrs.

Guthrie, we need to talk to you about a security issue.

Maybe someone pretending to be injured.

Help.

I’ve been in an accident.

Or someone she knew well enough that their voice didn’t alarm her.

But something compelled her to go to that door.

NY’s security setup is important to understand.

A Diablo rot iron gate on the outside.

Heavy, solid, then the main door behind it.

Nancy could look through that gate.

She could see who was outside without fully opening up.

Gruing believes that’s what she did.

She approached.

She looked through the gate and she saw someone.

Now, in the doorbell footage, the figure is wearing a mask, face completely covered, but Gru Sing doesn’t believe Nancy recognized a masked person.

He believes one of several things happened.

The mask slipped when the person spoke.

The person removed it deliberately, thinking Nancy wouldn’t open for a masked stranger, or Nancy saw past the mask, recognized the eyes, the build, the voice, the way the person moved.

Whatever it was, something clicked.

I know you.

Her face changed from confusion to recognition to shock.

The person saw it.

Saw the moment Nancy realized who was there.

She knows who I am.

And everything changed.

Recognition meant witness.

Nancy could tell police exactly who was at her door at 2:00 a.

m.

That was unacceptable.

Fear took over.

Not NY’s fear, his.

What do I do? She’s seen me.

I can’t let her go back inside.

I have to stop her right now.

Here’s the question everyone asks.

If Nancy could identify him, why didn’t he just kill her on the porch? Why risk kidnapping her? Grusing has thought this through carefully.

First, consider the location.

NY’s house is in a residential neighborhood.

Other homes nearby.

A gunshot at 2:00 a.

m.

would wake people, would cause lights to go on, would prompt 911 calls.

Even a struggle, if loud enough, could alert someone.

The person didn’t have time to think through every option.

He had seconds.

Killing her on the spot might have seemed too risky, too loud, too likely to leave evidence, too likely to draw immediate attention.

But taking her, that buys time.

It removes the witness from the scene.

creates distance between the crime and discovery.

He can take her somewhere quiet, somewhere he can think.

Maybe he thought he could convince her, threaten her into staying quiet.

Or maybe he didn’t think at all, just acted on instinct and adrenaline.

Gru Singh knows criminals under pressure don’t make logical decisions.

They make survival decisions.

In that moment, taking her felt like survival.

But here’s the critical part of Gruing’s theory.

He doesn’t believe this was premeditated kidnapping.

He believes this was an opportunistic abduction that occurred because the original plan fell apart.

As Grus explained, it’s very difficult to rationalize the irrational.

Something happened when they were in there.

Maybe the plan was burglary.

Maybe confrontation about something else.

But the moment Nancy recognized him and the plan changed.

Once he grabbed her, once he forced her off that porch, there was no going back because now he had an 84 year old woman who could identify him.

Who knew his name? And the only way to make that problem go away was to make Nancy disappear forever.

Let’s talk about those 40 minutes.

From 1:47 a.

m.

to 2:30 a.

m.

, the masked figure was inside NY’s house.

If this was a quick kidnapping, you wouldn’t spend 40 minutes inside.

If this was burglary, you wouldn’t linger.

40 minutes suggests loss of control.

Indecision, desperation.

Think about it from his perspective.

You came with one plan, but now Nancy has recognized you, and you’ve made a split-second decision to take her.

But now what? You’re in this woman’s house.

She’s injured.

There’s blood on the porch.

She’s bleeding.

Maybe terrified.

Maybe fighting back.

You have to figure out how to get her out without being seen.

You have to figure out where to take her.

You have to figure out what to do with her.

And all of this in the middle of the night in a neighborhood where cameras are everywhere.

40 minutes of that pressure trying to think through an impossible situation getting worse every second.

Gruing believes this is when the perpetrator may have tried to stage the scene.

Maybe tried to make it look like Nancy left voluntarily.

Maybe tried to remove evidence, clean up blood inside, maybe searching for something.

or maybe just paralyzed by indecision.

But by 2:30 a.

m.

, he had figured it out.

He was leaving and Nancy was leaving with him.

There’s another detail that supports Grusing’s theory of an amateur and over his head, the gun holster.

In the doorbell footage, you can see it worn on the front of his body.

For Grusing, a former FBI agent, this is immediately telling.

He describes it as not tactically sound.

Someone with real training wouldn’t wear a holster like that.

It’s awkward, in the way, difficult to draw from quickly.

Professionals wear holsters in specific positions for tactical reasons.

On the hip, on the back, in a shoulder holster.

Wearing it on the front suggests someone who’s seen it in movies but doesn’t know what they’re doing.

Someone who wanted to look intimidating but didn’t have real experience.

And that fits perfectly with someone who lost control, who made mistakes.

A professional wouldn’t spend 40 minutes inside, wouldn’t wear equipment incorrectly.

But an amateur, someone in over their head, they make mistakes.

And when a plan collapses, they make desperate, and irreversible decisions.

Like kidnapping an 84year-old woman because she saw their face.

So, if this wasn’t random, wasn’t for ransom, wasn’t about Savannah’s fame, then what was it? Gruing’s theory, a personal grievance.

He believes the masked figure had a personal issue with Nancy Guthrie specifically.

Maybe financial, maybe Nancy owed money or someone owed her.

Maybe a dispute over payment for work.

Maybe personal, bad blood, resentment building over time.

Maybe something Nancy didn’t even know about.

Someone blamed her for something.

Nursed a grudge.

But something specific brought this person to her door at 2:00 a.

m.

And Gruing doesn’t believe it was random.

Here’s why.

NY’s house is in the Catalina foothills.

Hundreds of homes, many easier targets if your goal was simple burglary.

But this person came to NY’s house specifically.

He knew about the cameras, tried to disable them.

He knew the layout, spent 40 minutes inside without getting lost.

He had knowledge of NY’s routine, knew she’d be home alone.

That’s not random.

That’s targeted.

And if it’s targeted, there’s a reason, a connection.

Gruing believes Nancy knew this person.

Maybe not intimately, but well enough that when she saw his face or heard his voice, she knew.

I know you.

And that moment sealed her fate.

As Grusing said, if someone out there knows a person who fits this profile, someone who had access to that neighborhood, someone whose behavior changed after February 1st, that’s who investigators need to hear about.

Maybe there’s someone who worked on NY’s house last year.

Maybe someone who had a dispute with her.

Maybe someone whose behavior changed noticeably after February 1st, who became paranoid, who started asking questions about what police know.

Grusing’s theory gives people something to look for, a profile to consider.

And somewhere in Tucson, someone might know exactly who fits that profile.

Here’s another piece supporting Gruing’s theory.

The alleged ransom notes.

Multiple media outlets received ransom communications.

TMZ reported a sophisticated demand involving cryptocurrency, but the Guthrie family was never directly contacted.

If this was real kidnapping for ransom, why contact TMZ instead of Savannah Guthrie? It doesn’t make sense.

Unless the ransom notes weren’t real.

Grusing believes the lack of direct family contact is significant.

It suggests ransom was never the real motive.

The real motive was something else, something personal.

And the fact that no one has claimed the $1.

2 million reward supports this.

If someone knew where Nancy was, that’s life-changing money.

But no one has come forward, which suggests the perpetrator isn’t motivated by financial gain.

He’s motivated by fear.

Fear of being identified or guilt.

Knowing what he did can’t be undone.

Gruing doesn’t believe it’s ransom.

He believes it’s personal.

Let’s lay out the evidence supporting Gruing’s recognition theory.

The blood on the porch.

NY’s blood found outside, not inside.

Suggests she went to the door voluntarily.

No forced entry.

The Diablo security gate wasn’t broken.

Nancy likely opened it herself.

The 40-minute timeline consistent with someone who didn’t know what to do next.

Someone in desperation.

Amateur gun holster suggests someone without professional training.

Someone who made mistakes.

FBI’s local focus.

Investigators asking about construction workers, former neighbors, people with access.

Suggests they’re looking at local suspects.

No family ransom contact.

Despite media notes, family was never directly contacted.

Suggests ransom wasn’t real motive.

Scouting visits.

January 11th and 24th visits suggest someone familiar with the property.

Someone Nancy might recognize.

Savannah’s statement taken from her bed suggests Nancy was asleep, then compelled to door.

Specific targeting.

NY’s house specifically chosen despite hundreds of potential targets.

48day search failure.

No body found suggests local knowledge of where to hide her.

When you combine these elements, Gruing’s theory makes coherent sense.

This wasn’t random.

This wasn’t professional.

This was something that spiraled out of control the moment Nancy recognized who was at her door.

But we have to examine evidence that doesn’t fit neatly.

The full backpack.

Why bring a 25 L pack for a confrontation? Suggests planning, however, could have been for different original purpose.

The elaborate disguise.

Mask, gloves, full coverage suggests effort to avoid identification.

Why show up at all if Nancy knows you unless she recognized something despite the disguise? Multiple scouting visits.

January 11th suggests premeditation, not panic.

Maybe he planned something else that became kidnapping when Nancy recognized him.

Sophisticated avoidance.

Wi-Fi disruptions.

No DNA left behind.

Doesn’t match amateur profile.

Unless sophisticated in some ways, amateur in others.

effective disposal.

If this was desperation, how did he hide her so well? Requires planning unless he had local knowledge of terrain.

These are real complications.

They don’t invalidate the theory, but create friction points.

The truth may combine planned and opportunistic elements.

Maybe he planned to be there, but recognition and kidnapping were unplanned reactions.

That’s the nuance.

Not claiming everything was spontaneous.

But identifying recognition as the critical turning point, Gruing isn’t the only expert who’s weighed in.

Morgan Wright believes Nancy forgot to lock her door after coming home tired.

Perpetrator tested it, found it unlocked, entered.

Align with Gru’s idea something went wrong inside.

James Hamilton believes sophisticated theft gang on tourist visas would explain no DNA match, but doesn’t explain personal elements.

Ink.

Joseph Scott Morgan believes someone knew Nancy was Savannah’s mother.

Thought they could leverage that.

Shares Grusing’s local connection emphasis.

What all experts agree on, someone local is likely involved.

Answer is probably closer than international conspiracies.

The truth may incorporate elements from multiple theories, but they all point to someone in the community.

Someone still out there.

So, what really happened on NY’s porch at 2:00 a.

m.

on February 1st? Did Nancy look through that gate and recognize a face she wasn’t supposed to see? Did that moment seal her fate? Johnny Grusing, who helped bring the Golden State Killer to justice, believes Nancy knew her kidnapper.

He believes that moment, I know you, changed everything.

He believes she was taken not because of who her daughter is, but because of who he is.

And somewhere, someone knows the answer with certainty.

Someone knows who was at that door.

Someone knows what happened on that porch.

Someone knows where Nancy Guthrie is.

Will that someone come forward? Will they call the FBI at 1800 call FBI? Will they provide the information that brings Nancy home? Or will this remain another unsolved mystery? Gruising has given us a framework, a theory, but only one person can give us the truth.

the person who was there, the person Nancy may have recognized.

Until that person speaks, NY’s family will continue to wait, continue to hope, continue to search for answers.

Did she know? A porch light glows in the darkness.

The same porch where blood was found.

Where a confrontation occurred, where an 84year-old woman may have looked into the eyes of someone she knew.

Yellow flowers cover the driveway now, ribbons on the gate, cards with prayers, but the porch remains empty, silent.

The Diablo security gate closed, the door shut, just the weight of what happened here.

The camera holds for a long moment.

No music, no narration, no resolution, just the knowledge that somewhere someone knows what happened.

Someone knows why NY’s blood is on this concrete.

Someone knows why she never came back inside.

Did she know? I know.

You fade to black.

Gruing’s theory doesn’t solve this case, but it gives us a framework, a way to understand what might have happened.

If Nancy recognized her kidnapper, the answer isn’t hidden abroad.

The answer is in Tucson, in the neighborhood, in contractor lists, in construction records, in people who moved away before February 1st.

It’s right there.

Oh.

waiting to be uncovered.

Someone who knows a person whose behavior changed.

Someone who noticed something strange.

Someone who connected dots but dismissed them.

That person could be watching now.

If this changed how you think about this case, hit that like button.

Drop a comment.

Do you believe Nancy recognized her kidnapper? Subscribe to Crime Uncovered for more expert analysis from former FBI agents and forensic specialists.

Because we don’t just tell stories, we search for truth.

And Nancy Guthrie deserves nothing less.

Call the FBI.

1800 Call FBI.

Call Pima County Sheriff 52035149 Oh.

$1.

2 million is waiting.

Someone knows.

And that someone could bring a family closure.