I noticed this on the news and am sharing it because of the similarities.
It could be a copycat, or even linked to the same criminal(s) or group (unlikely, but theoretically possible). It’s also possible that scammers are scraping missing-person sites to try to extract money from relatives - who knows.
I’ve been following this and like most people I lean toward the explanations that feel the most straightforward right now.
Still I keep thinking it’s worth deliberately looking at the lower-probability stuff so those can get properly checked and set aside if they don’t fit.
I’m not talking about crazy theories.
Just the ordinary messy human-scale things that can still happen even when they seem unlikely. Someone has a medical event or falls, ends up outside or near a road, gets hit by a vehicle, and the driver panics and covers it up because they’re intoxicated or scared of the consequences.
Or a person dies of natural or accidental causes inside and a random burglar shows up later, finds the body, freaks out, moves some things while trying to leave, and the whole scene looks way more staged than it actually was.
Stuff like that has happened before. In 2015 a group of burglars in Ireland broke into a farmhouse looking for scrap metal and instead walked straight into two already-dead bodies.
They got so spooked they went straight to the police station and reported it themselves before the cops even knew anyone was dead. No connection between the burglars and the deaths, just pure bad timing and coincidence.
In this situation the maximum version of that kind of thing would be the porch guy being some random burglar who happened to show up after something else already went wrong.
Has anyone already looked closely at whether the evidence rules these quieter possibilities out, or are there other low-probability but still human-scale explanations worth putting on the table just to make sure they’ve been considered?
Curious what others think especially if you’ve seen similar cases where the eventual explanation turned out quieter and less expected than what people first assumed...?
The house was described as almost untouched inside with no blood reported.
Yet there were blood drips on the front porch.
The first ransom note mentioned the Apple Watch (white band) was on the bedroom floor.
These details create an odd picture.
Blood spatter analysis looks at the shape, size and direction of drops to figure out movement and force.
Here are the main types:
Passive drops happen when blood falls straight down from a person who is standing or moving slowly.
The drops are usually round with little splashing or tails.
This is what the porch drops seem to look like.
Cast-off patterns come from blood being flung off a moving object like a hand or weapon.
You see lines or arcs of drops.
Impact spatter is from force hitting the blood source.
It creates lots of small scattered drops.
Projected patterns are from blood under pressure, like arterial spurting, and look large and irregular.
The porch drops look mostly passive (round, slow movement).
There are no signs of faster movement, splashing or cast-off lines that would come from a struggle.
There is also no indication of anyone stepping in the blood or walking over the drops, which would be expected if there was a struggle on the porch.
This is puzzling when combined with the Apple Watch on the bedroom floor and no blood reported inside the house.
If the confrontation started on the porch, why is the watch on the bedroom floor?
If it started in the bedroom, why is there no blood or sign of struggle inside?
The blood on the porch could technically be from before that night.
For example, a cut finger while opening a parcel or cooking, or a nosebleed while picking up mail or taking out the trash.
Those would produce passive drops without struggle signs.
The blood pattern and watch location raise questions about the exact sequence of events.
The passive porch blood and the clean interior do not fit a violent struggle scenario cleanly.
If she was subdued quickly, that itself usually doesn't cause bleeding.
What do you think about the blood on the porch and the watch in the bedroom?
How do they fit together?
Any other ideas that could explain this?
There is a theory from some ex FBI profilers that this is not a real kidnapping.
The ransom notes are fake and the person is a stalker fixated on Savannah Guthrie.
Here is a detailed look at stalker crime patterns from behavioral analysis studies.
Modern stalking research shows:
- 80-85% male.
- Peak age in 30s.
- 70-75% have some prior connection to the target.
- Behavior includes long-term surveillance, escalation, use of media or proxies, history of grievances.
In proxy attacks the stalker usually has a strong fixation on the primary person.
Savannah is the most public family member. However, the complete lack of any prior harassment or contact with Savannah is unusual.
Stalkers almost always have a history of communication before escalating.
The complete lack of any mention of Savannah in the notes and no further contact after the crime also does not fit typical stalker behavior.
The theory has problems.
Random stranger stalkers targeting a celebrity’s family without any previous contact are statistically rare.
Blaming the crime on Savannah being public is not fair.
Being in the public eye does not cause crime.
Well known publicity related stalking cases show this pattern:
Robert John Bardo stalked actress Rebecca Schaeffer after sending letters and using a private detective.
Margaret Mary Ray broke into David Letterman’s home multiple times and sent letters claiming they were married.
Dante Soiu sent hundreds of letters and packages to Gwyneth Paltrow and showed up at her home.
Thomas Ryan Giacopelli sent threatening messages to Selena Gomez and tried to meet her.
Long-term stalker behavior includes surveillance phase for months or years, escalation from indirect actions to real-world intrusions, and persistence even after intervention.
They often adapt methods when blocked.
The notes going to media and the tone shifts are consistent with attention-seeking behavior, but the specific crime scene details make a pure hoax less likely.
If it is a stalker the notes are a way to stay in the spotlight and affect Savannah indirectly.
The lack of any prior public harassment is the biggest hole in the theory.
What do you think about the stalker angle?
Does the note behavior match other stalking cases?
Any other details that could support or rule out this theory?
The first ransom note said the Apple Watch (white band) was on the floor in the bedroom.
That detail wasnt public at the time, so whoever wrote it had to have real access to the scene right after she was taken.
This was confirmed by multiple outlets that were briefed on the note (KOLD, People, TMZ, CNN).
The house was described as almost untouched inside with no blood reported anywhere indoors.
Yet there were blood drips on the front porch.
That doesnt add up easily.
If she just opened the door for a normal visitor, why would the watch end up on the bedroom floor?
It feels like something sudden happened in or near the bedroom.
The FBI loves playing games with information in cases like this.
In the Lindbergh kidnapping they publicly treated some ransom notes as real while privately investigating others as hoaxes.
They used newspaper ads for negotiation and leaked information strategically to keep the real sender communicating.
With Zodiac, police and media sometimes publicly questioned the authenticity of letters or said they were not credible to provoke the killer into sending more.
Zodiac would respond with angry letters when he felt ignored.
In the Guthrie case the FBI first said through sources that the notes were likely not legitimate.
Then a day or two later they stated some might still be legitimate and are still being investigated.
The back and forth could be the same kind of tactic.
The watch placement is one of the strongest things that makes the first note feel connected to what actually happened.
Its hard to fake that kind of specific detail without being there.
The clean house + porch blood + bedroom watch just doesnt line up with a simple "she answered the door" story.
What do you guys make of the watch on the floor and the blood only outside?
Does it point to a quick grab on the porch or something more complicated inside?
Any theories on why the inside was left so spotless if there was any kind of struggle?
The first ransom note demanded millions in Bitcoin with deadlines of Thursday evening and the following Monday.
It included non-public details on the Apple Watch location and a damaged floodlight.
The second note claimed unintentional death and burial with nature.
Later notes to TMZ demanded Bitcoin for video and information using the phrase delivering them on a silver platter.
The sender switched Bitcoin address in the newest note while maintaining the same alias and patterns.
Bitcoin transfers of millions require time for conversion from traditional assets.
Short deadlines make genuine collection unrealistic without triggering banking alerts.
The phone with video claim in the latest note is traceable via IMEI and tower pings while the sender has avoided tracing on previous messages.
The low Bitcoin amount in later notes contrasts with the initial millions demand. The repeated media focus and tone shifts suggest the goal may have been publicity or confusion rather than payment.
The video claim would require direct connection if real, yet the sender continues public contact instead of private negotiation.
These elements match documented hoax patterns more closely than successful ransom cases.
The case remains unsolved with no body recovered.
Search efforts have covered brush and roads near the home but have not expanded to systematic grid searches of larger areas in the Catalina Foothills or Sonora Mexico regions mentioned in later notes.
Cadaver dogs and ground-penetrating radar have not been reported in expanded zones.
The burial with nature claim makes targeted searches in desert or natural areas realistic even months later due to slow decomposition in arid conditions.
The pacemaker data stopped early but no cell tower or financial tracking has been publicly detailed beyond initial reports.
Practical next steps include expanded cadaver dog deployments in areas within 50 miles of the home, review of all Bitcoin wallet activity linked to the addresses, and full linguistic comparison of all notes for writer consistency.
The short deadlines and traceable phone offer reduce the likelihood of a professional ransom operation.
The persistent media contact fits patterns of distraction or opportunism.
Public data on the notes remains limited to summaries.
The FBI has not released full transcripts.
What specific detail in the ransom notes or search efforts is most likely to break the case if pursued?
With the new €3 flat customs fee per item/category starting 1 July for orders under €150,
plus the planned extra ~€2 handling fee per line in autumn (basically €5 extra per product type? )
I’m wondering if it’s actually cheaper now to just make one bigger order over €150 and deal with normal customs + VAT when it arrives.
A lot of sellers already seem to be baking the €3 into the prices or adding it on small orders. Then there’s 24% VAT calculated on the total including those fees.
For mixed small items this could add up quickly.
On bigger orders you pay normal HS-code based duties (which aren’t that high for a lot of small consumer stuff) + the same 24% VAT + one handling fee from the delivery company.
Or even declare it yourself.
I’ve done it years ago and finding the right HS codes wasn’t a big deal.
Eventually (2028) the low-value exemption disappears completely anyway and everything gets treated like a normal >€150 order.
Has anyone else been thinking the same?
Have you tried consolidating into bigger orders lately, or noticed sellers already adding the €3?
Curious what the real-world difference is.
​
Ransom notes went straight to KOLD-TV and TMZ instead of the family.
A $6 million Bitcoin demand suddenly turned into a bizarre apology claiming she had unintentionally died and was buried with nature.
A lot of people look at the specific details in those notes, like the Apple Watch and the exact floodlight placement, and assume it must be an inside job.
But sending ransom notes and messages directly to the media instead of the victim’s family is not a new tactic.
It appears in several well-known cases.
In the 1932 Lindbergh kidnapping, the perpetrators used newspaper classified ads and follow-up letters to the press as their main way to communicate after the initial note.
The Zodiac Killer sent dozens of letters, ciphers, and threats straight to the San Francisco Chronicle.
The 1927 Marion Parker case and early Black Hand extortion rings also involved notes addressed to newspapers to taunt police and control the story.
This shows that external offenders have long used the press as a megaphone. So what external profiles actually fit the evidence in the Nancy Guthrie case?
Here are five possibilities that work without requiring anyone on the inside:
No physical insider is needed.
Public property records, building permits, and old real-estate listings already show the full layout of the house.
A skilled remote hacker who got into the home Wi-Fi could see every connected device, including something like “Nancy’s Apple Watch,” and spot camera blind spots weeks ahead of time.
The specific details in the notes could have come entirely from online research or network access.
Some offenders care more about attention and playing games with the media and police than about the money itself.
Bypassing the family to contact newsrooms matches the Zodiac pattern closely.
The sudden shift from a huge Bitcoin demand to a rambling apology about her being buried with nature fits someone who got in over their head but still wanted to stay in the spotlight and shape the public story.
The FBI released doorbell footage of a masked suspect, but investigators noted he may have visited the property without the mask on an earlier trip.
Someone willing to spend days or weeks watching an elderly target can learn exact routines, note every floodlight position, and find blind spots without any inside help.
This is classic long-term physical surveillance that escalates into abduction and extortion.
Part of the confusion probably comes from multiple unrelated people jumping in.
While one core offender sent the real notes, the huge publicity quickly attracted frauds and opportunists.
A man in California was already arrested for sending a fake ransom note to exploit the situation. When random people start demanding Bitcoin for “information” or flooding tips lines, a real investigation starts looking like a messy conspiracy.
Tucson sits only a few hours from the Arizona-Mexico border.
A transnational group experienced with crypto extortion could run an operation like this from a distance.
It could also involve someone with off-family connections, such as an associate of an estranged relative, a former contractor, or an ex-employee’s contact who once had legitimate access to family financial information but has no current daily presence in Nancy’s life.
The Roadside Glove Lead and Why It Went Nowhere?
Searchers found a black glove on North Campbell Avenue, roughly two miles from the house, that looked like the gloves worn by the masked suspect on the porch camera.
DNA was recovered and checked against the national database with no match.
By March, investigators determined it belonged to a local restaurant worker who had simply dropped a similar glove during their regular commute.
It was unrelated roadside litter and turned into one of the biggest publicized dead ends in the case.
Some true-crime YouTuber or TikToker who was tanking probably made the notes themselves.
They pulled the house layout and Apple Watch stuff straight from public records, sent the ransom demands to KOLD-TV and TMZ so it would go viral, and then dropped that “buried with nature” line to keep the story alive for more videos.
I don’t think they were involved in any real kidnapping. They just needed fresh content and turned this into their own personal content farm.
What do you think?
Here are 10 speculative, unlikely-but-technically-possible alternative scenarios for the Nancy Guthrie disappearance (based strictly on publicly reported facts as of mid-2026).
​
These draw from the known timeline, evidence, and technical details while treating the official abduction narrative as one interpretation among others.
​
They emphasize misadventures, medical events, or misread evidence that could explain the porch blood (her DNA, minimal drops/trail), ~41-minute window between doorbell cam tamper (~1:47 a.m. Feb. 1) and pacemaker monitor disconnect (~2:28 a.m.), lack of obvious internal violence/forced entry, phone/meds left behind, limited mobility, desert/foothills terrain, and unverified ransom notes (widely viewed as possible hoaxes).
​
​
These are highly speculative hypotheticals for a cold case with no body recovered after ~4.5 months.
​
They are hard (or impossible) to prove due to time passed, vast desert search area (canyons, border proximity), potential decomposition/scavenging, signal/range limitations on devices, and lack of witnesses.
​
​
Official investigators treat it as an abduction with signs of foul play; these are presented only as alternative lenses on public data that could involve misunderstandings of technical evidence (e.g., pacemaker timestamp as death vs. signal loss; blood as struggle vs. medical event; cam tamper as abductor vs. helper/scavenger).
​
​
​
An 84-year-old with a pacemaker and heart meds has a sudden nosebleed or episode (common in vulnerable adults), steps onto the porch for air or collapses, causing the minimal blood drops/trail. Confused or weakened, she wanders into the dark Catalina Foothills terrain (hilly, remote), falls into a ravine/canyon, or succumbs to exposure/hypothermia.
A later passerby, driver on a nearby access road, or opportunistic local finds the body and disposes of it (dumps in desert or across border) to avoid involvement/liability. The masked cam person could be unrelated (scout, scavenger, or separate incident) or the disposer covering tracks. Pacemaker disconnect marks approximate time of death or final signal before range loss.
​
Hard to prove: body hidden/decomposed in vast area; no witnesses; ransom notes unrelated hoaxes.
​
​
​
She goes outside briefly (perhaps hearing a noise, checking something, or due to early confusion from meds/health), stands near driveway/road edge, and is struck by a passing vehicle (one public report noted a car speeding by nearby around the relevant timeframe). Minimal porch blood comes from initial impact, transfer while briefly moved, or a nosebleed from trauma.
Panicked driver (fearing DUI, manslaughter, or scrutiny of elderly vulnerable adult) loads/takes the body and disposes it in remote desert or Mexico border area. Cam tamper could be coincidental or by a separate party. Pacemaker time roughly aligns with when she left range.
​
Hard to prove: no body/recovered vehicle evidence after months; driver never comes forward; terrain hides remains.
​
​
​
​
She dies of natural causes (heart/pacemaker-related event) around or just after 2 a.m., possibly collapsing near the door (explaining porch blood from minor trauma or post-mortem settling/transfer). No internal violence fits. A discoverer—perhaps the masked/gloved person (reinterpreted not as initial abductor but as someone arriving later, e.g., local or opportunistic figure)—finds the body, panics or sees a chance to exploit the high-profile family, removes it, and sends or inspires ransom notes (Bitcoin demands to media) as misdirection or extortion attempt. Gloves found 2 miles away could be discarded by this person (DNA match to restaurant worker is a red herring or theirs).
​
Hard to prove: no body; notes unverified/hoax-like; technical devices only give rough timing.
​
​
The masked, gloved, armed figure on the Nest cam (who tampered with it using foliage) was not a premeditated abductor but someone responding to a noise, light, or perceived distress (or scouting earlier without backpack, per some reports). They find her in medical distress on the porch (nosebleed/blood from fall or episode), attempt to help/load her into a vehicle for aid, but she dies en route from her condition, stress, or an accident during transport. Fearing misinterpretation as a crime against a vulnerable elderly woman (or having their own issues), they dispose of the body remotely. Pacemaker disconnect marks death or final signal.
​
Hard to prove: person never surfaces; no body; cam footage fits "tamper to help or hide involvement" as easily as abduction.
​
​
Despite being described as mentally sharp, age, meds, or a pacemaker glitch causes temporary disorientation or symptoms. She steps out (or is briefly outside), wanders into the dark, rugged Catalina Foothills/desert, falls, gets lost, or succumbs to elements.
Minimal porch blood is from a minor injury or nosebleed before leaving. Body remains in a canyon/ravine or is partially buried by weather/sand; animals or time degrade evidence. Cam tamper could be unrelated (burglar who left upon seeing no one, or separate event). Pacemaker time is when signal was lost due to distance/range as she moved away (not necessarily death at home).
​
Hard to prove: exhaustive searches missed remote spots; no body after months; technical data (pacemaker, cam) misinterpreted as precise abduction timeline.
​
​
​
​
The 2:28 a.m. pacemaker monitor disconnect (phone left behind) is not death at home but signal loss from range, battery, or movement. She was taken or left earlier (or had an episode leading her out), died later from her condition during transport or in a vehicle. The masked cam person is the abductor/helper, but the event started as a medical response that turned fatal. Body dumped in desert. Ransom notes are hoaxes exploiting the case.
​
Hard to prove: device data has limitations (range, not always exact location of death); no body; months-old evidence degraded.
​
​
She sustains a minor injury on the porch (explaining blood drops—perhaps from a fall, door, or brief struggle at entrance with no major internal signs). Someone known, semi-known, or a stranger lures/coerces her out (or she follows in confusion). She dies en route or shortly after from the underlying condition, injury complications, or stress. Body disposed remotely. The cam tamper fits an abductor or the person covering tracks. Gloves nearby unrelated or discarded.
​
Hard to prove: "no violence inside" fits porch-only event; no witnesses/body; ransom notes fake.
​
​
​
Natural death or simple fall/medical event occurs (porch blood from nosebleed or minor trauma). A local (possibly linked to gloves found 2 miles away, despite DNA red herring) or scavenger discovers the body later that night/early morning. They remove it (to hide involvement or exploit), and ransom notes follow as a money-making scheme or misdirection (common in high-profile cases). Cam person could be this individual or an earlier unrelated tamper.
​
Hard to prove: no body; notes unverified; desert perfect for quick disposal; technical timing loose.
​
​
​
​
She dies naturally or from a simple accident (fall causing blood) inside or at the door before or around 2 a.m. The masked/gloved person (or another) arrives, finds the body, and stages an abduction scene (tampering with cam to suggest intruder) to cover removal or enable ransom demands to the wealthy/high-profile family. No internal struggle fits a post-death staging. Body taken to remote area.
​
Hard to prove: staging explains lack of major violence signs; notes likely fake anyway; no body after months.
​
​
​
​
A mix: porch blood from nosebleed/fall; she wanders or is briefly helped out due to distress; cam tamper by a later party or coincidental; pacemaker disconnect due to range as she moves away (or death later). She dies in the desert from exposure, fall, or condition. Body hidden by terrain/elements or disposed by a finder. Ransom notes unrelated. This fits the short window and lack of internal evidence if the main event was medical/outdoor.
​
Hard to prove: multiple technical ambiguities (pacemaker range vs. exact death time; cam as one data point); vast area; time elapsed.
​
As there was the version of simple theories, these are the unlikely and hard to prove one's, what do you think of these?
As this is now very close to putting this on the cold case folder I'd though to make one ping about the case not to get all that dust on it for the next 10 years before fresh detectives look over it again.
And yes even I have followed the case from day one and aware of all aspects I made my question to AI what it thinks the theories are exactly right now..
So I am curious to start discussion what people think of these as humans with bit more logic on the social and human aspects..
The theories based on AI basically are:
Targeted by a Local Criminal (The "Elder Abuse" Theory)
The Premise: Investigators and forensic experts believe Nancy was targeted by a local worker or someone who was familiar with the area and assumed the family's wealth.
The Motive: Criminal profilers hypothesize the perpetrator planned to rob the house for quick cash or valuables, known to be kept by vulnerable seniors. The encounter may have turned into an abduction when Nancy confronted the intruder or suffered a medical emergency.
Lack of Ransom: Experts suggest the kidnapper failed to issue a credible ransom because Nancy may have died of shock or a medical episode shortly after being taken.
An Inside Job or Orchestrated by an Associate
The Premise: Former legal and law enforcement experts, including attorney Charles Brewer, have questioned the traditional wealth-motivated kidnapping.
The Motive: Because no legitimate ransom demands or negotiations followed the abduction, some theorists believe it was orchestrated by someone connected to the family, an associate, or someone attempting to resolve a personal grievance or debt.
The Mexico Cartel Diversion
The Premise: This theory emerged largely from tips and "ransom" messages (which the FBI later flagged as fraudulent crypto hoaxes).
The Theory: Theorists speculate the kidnapper was either contracted by a dangerous entity or was part of a cartel-related plot. Under this scenario, the abductor swiftly transported Nancy across the border into Sonora, Mexico, where she was hidden or the plot was intended to make her suffer.
Intentional Disappearance or Staged Event
The Premise: A subset of internet sleuths and armchair theorists have speculated that Nancy left voluntarily or staged the event for attention.
Current Status: Law enforcement, including the Pima County Sheriff's Department, has firmly dismissed this theory. The recovery of her blood at the entrance of her home indicates she was taken against her will and likely sustained injuries.
Let's not bury this under all of the new cases, what do you think of these most simple theories that computer would give us by simple prompt on theories?
As this is now very close to putting this on the cold case folder I'd though to make one ping about the case not to get all that dust on it for the next 10 years before fresh detectives look over it again.
And yes even I have followed the case from day one and aware of all aspects I made my question to AI what it thinks the theories are exactly right now..
So I am curious to start discussion what people think of these as humans with bit more logic on the social and human aspects..
The theories based on AI basically are:
Targeted by a Local Criminal (The "Elder Abuse" Theory)
The Premise: Investigators and forensic experts believe Nancy was targeted by a local worker or someone who was familiar with the area and assumed the family's wealth.
The Motive: Criminal profilers hypothesize the perpetrator planned to rob the house for quick cash or valuables, known to be kept by vulnerable seniors. The encounter may have turned into an abduction when Nancy confronted the intruder or suffered a medical emergency.
Lack of Ransom: Experts suggest the kidnapper failed to issue a credible ransom because Nancy may have died of shock or a medical episode shortly after being taken.
An Inside Job or Orchestrated by an Associate
The Premise: Former legal and law enforcement experts, including attorney Charles Brewer, have questioned the traditional wealth-motivated kidnapping.
The Motive: Because no legitimate ransom demands or negotiations followed the abduction, some theorists believe it was orchestrated by someone connected to the family, an associate, or someone attempting to resolve a personal grievance or debt.
The Mexico Cartel Diversion
The Premise: This theory emerged largely from tips and "ransom" messages (which the FBI later flagged as fraudulent crypto hoaxes).
The Theory: Theorists speculate the kidnapper was either contracted by a dangerous entity or was part of a cartel-related plot. Under this scenario, the abductor swiftly transported Nancy across the border into Sonora, Mexico, where she was hidden or the plot was intended to make her suffer.
Intentional Disappearance or Staged Event
The Premise: A subset of internet sleuths and armchair theorists have speculated that Nancy left voluntarily or staged the event for attention.
Current Status: Law enforcement, including the Pima County Sheriff's Department, has firmly dismissed this theory. The recovery of her blood at the entrance of her home indicates she was taken against her will and likely sustained injuries.
Let's not bury this under all of the new cases, what do you think of these most simple theories that computer would give us by simple prompt on theories?
Id like to discuss the angle of her house listing in October 2024.
On Realtor you can see the listings.
(And any other house listings that you may generally be intrested of. Or if Intrested of buying or selling house that area)
In 2007, almost 20 year ago, the house was listed from February to October. Price was dropped in August and then the listing removed in October.
In 2024 October the house was listed 10/2, 10/3 then 10/5 price was lowered and all listings immediately removed?
Same prices (higher and lower) were used as in 2007 but not before first wait almost whole year to drop the price but only few days.
Someone then bought house beginning of 2025, but not defaming here, it may have some logical reason for it, like using to to grand loan or whatever.
And to underline not pointing to anyone, things may have logical reason behind it, but this subject is not yet talked and it is related to the house from where person had vanished and is likely not alive anymore, so it may need few angles to discuss and reason this.
Any thoughts?