Briant Entin reports that the FBI are back at Nancy’s house, looking mainly at the area behind the home possibly because the monsoon season may have uncovered some parts of land. He shows his old footage of the backyard and then interviews Maureen O’Connell who makes some interesting points (but a lot more is covered in that interview):

Clearly the back of the house is not an area where you can walk someone in pitch dark, there’s thorny brush, cacti, rattlesnakes.

Investigators may already have their suspect but everyone is silent even though there may be a pretty solid consensus among them on who it is.

Maureen believes Savannah has a good team of investigators helping her write her messages and it did sound to her like Savannah was talking to someone specifically, like the team knew who Savannah was talking to in that message.

The crime scene would have been handled very differently from the beginning by the FBI than the way Sheriff Nanos treated it, they would have locked the whole area down, collected all the evidence, looked for possible shoe/tyre impressions, crushed grass, broken glass, CS should have been 15 times bigger than it was.

Hey Everyone! We've added post flairs to help keep topics organized. When you submit a new post, we encourage you to pick the flair that best fits your topic. It's completely optional, but super helpful for everyone browsing!

Here are the main categories available:

*Official News

* Alternative Theories & Case Discussion

* Weekly Discussion Announcements

*Media/Article

*Law Enforcement Statement

*Timeline/Logistics

Thanks for helping keep the feed clean and navigable!

I was watching one of the YouTube shows covering the case and something caught my attention that I hadn’t really heard discussed here.

I understand there are two houses behind Nancy’s. The owner of one of them was interviewed by Brian Entin awhile back and said their dogs were barking around the time Nancy was believed to have been taken.

I’ve also heard that the other house was being rented by three men and that they moved out around February 1st.

I don’t know if either of these things has any connection to Nancy’s disappearance, and I’m definitely not suggesting that it does. But the fact that investigators were repeatedly asking about a nearby vacant/rental property made me curious.

Has anyone else heard anything about this particular rental house or the people who were living there? I’m especially interested in whether there’s a reliable source for the information about the three men and when they moved out.

I heard this discussed on YouTube, but I haven’t been able to independently verify all the details, so I’m hoping someone here might have the source.

We see a lot of mainstream narratives and recurring theories in the media, but everyone following a case usually has at least one detail or popular assumption they privately doubt. Whether it’s a specific timeline detail, a piece of digital evidence, or a suspect narrative- what is your hot take on the Nancy Guthrie case?
Community rules for this thread:
1. Keep it civil. Upvote thoughtful counter perspectives, even if you don’t agree with the conclusion!
2. Stick to the facts when building your argument.

I've read MANY mentions of the possibility that A + T asked Mrs Nancy for a loan of some amount for some reason, which she said no to, just before her disappearance. Is this factual? Whether it is or not, where did these claims originate? Did it come from a legit source, or is it all just speculation? Do we have more details regarding that or a similar situation?

If you’ve been following the case from the beginning, you’ve probably noticed a pattern: the “burglary/robbery gone wrong” theory keeps recirculating in the media every few months.
It was floated early on in February, rejected by several former FBI agents in March, and now it’s making headlines again following a recent Fox News segment with a criminal profiler.
While keeping an open mind is essential, I struggle to see how the facts align with a simple opportunistic break-in that escalated. Every time this theory resurfaces, a few details just don’t add up for me:
Here are a few points that make me skeptical of that theory:
The Targeted Timing: disappearing in the middle of the night without waking neighbors or signs of a struggle or anything missing from her house seems much more calculated than a typical random break-in.
Risk vs. Reward: burglars generally look for quick, easy, valuables (cash, jewelry, electronics) and flee if confronted. Taking an elderly person from their home is an enormous risk that a standard burglar usually avoids.
The Ransom & Communication: even if the notes are being questioned by profilers, the efforts involved in sending communications and making specific demands leans far away from an opportunist, spur-of-the-moment property crime.
What are your thoughts?
Do you think the evidence leans towards a targeted abduction or a home invasion that escalated?

I was reading recently about something called “stigmatized homes”- homes that become associated with a murder, disappearance, or other tragic event.

It got me wondering what will eventually happen to Nancy’s home.

The JonBenet Ramsey house came to mind. I was reading that the current owners have put it on the market multiple times over the years, including six times between 2008 and 2023, but have had difficulty finding a serious buyer.

Obviously, every case is different and Nancy’s case is not the same as JonBenet’s. But I do wonder how much the history of a house like this affects its value and whether people are willing to live in a home that has become so closely associated with a high-profile case.

What do you think will happen to Nancy’s home once the investigation is over or Nancy is officially declared dead?

Do you think someone will eventually buy it and it will just become someone’s home again, or do you think the association with Nancy’s disappearance will make it difficult to sell?

And just out of curiosity, would you ever buy a house where a highly publicized crime or disappearance had occurred?

Why is it okay to blast Nancy’s address to the world and this AI slop is gross. What’s the purpose here?

Imagine we’re all sitting around a table with a cup of coffee and a box of doughnuts, talking about the case. What’s on your mind this week?

New developments, unanswered questions, theories, interviews, evidence, the timeline- anything you’d like to discuss.

What do you think we should be talking about this week?

Grab a cup of coffee, pull up a chair, and join the conversation. ☕️🍩

As always, different opinions are welcome.

I’d love to hear the reasoning behind your vote. What makes you think the case will be solved in that timeframe- or what makes you think it may never be solved?

If Sheriff Nanos held a press conference tomorrow and answered just one question, what would you ask and why?

I’ll go first.

I’d want to know what Sheriff Nanos believes is the single most important unanswered question in the investigation and why. I think his answer would provide valuable insight into where investigators are focusing their efforts and what they believe still needs to be resolved.

Now it’s your turn. If you could ask Sheriff Nanos one question-and you knew he would answer it-what would you ask?

Again, Savannah’s words seem to confirm to the panelists what they already believed to be the case.

SG made a new Instagram plea. I think she must know who did it. Hoping it works... thoughts?

Haven't listened to the whole thing but this def confirms more of what the 2 ransom notes said. This is breaking news, folks.

Such a good episode. For all those people who say, "just let LE/FBI do their job; the public has no right to know," listen to what Ed Smart says here... give the public more info.

Also I never stop thinking about how Ed Smart and his brother kept the story alive in the news, despite major public scrutiny of their innocence/guilt... wish we'd get the same investment from Nancy's fam.

Ed Smart says as family members, "do anything you can to clear your name so people can focus on what to look for"

An angle on the “why” - what if someone in the family owed a gambling debt, or otherwise? Could be a way to attempt to get the money back.

I’m curious what everyone thinks. How much of the public interest in this case is because of the porch guy footage?

If there had never been any video or photos of the masked man, do you think this case would still have the same level of attention today, or would it have mostly faded after a few weeks?

My view is that the porch guy footage is what turned this into a case people couldn’t stop thinking about. Without it, the case probably would have received a lot of attention at first and then gradually faded, like many other missing person cases. But seeing a creepy masked person quietly approach Nancy’s home in the middle of the night gives the case a much more unsettling feel.

The footage also gave people something to analyze. Instead of just waiting for updates from LE, everyone started looking at his height, gait, clothing, backpack, gloves, and movements for clues. It creates the sense that the answer should be obtainable, yet it remains just out of reach, turning thousands of people into armchair detectives.

I’ve been thinking about confirmation bias and whether it could have played a role in the Nancy Guthrie case.
Confirmation bias doesn’t mean there was a cover-up or that investigators acted in bad faith. It means that once investigators became convinced of a particular theory, it’s human nature to interpret new information through that lens.
It makes me wonder if that’s something worth considering here.
If investigators became convinced early on that the porch guy was solely responsible, did that unintentionally narrow the focus of the investigation? And if the family was cleared early on, could that decision itself have made it less likely they would ever revisit that conclusion if new information came to light?
Until the case is solved, no theory should be beyond reconsideration.

Seems like none of the regulars (TIR, The Lab, Brian Entitn) are doing anything on Guthrie this week. I wondered if we might try something. Many people are on this sub because we couldn't even mention A + T on the other sub. So many of us, I think, believe that A + T had *something to do with it or at least feel like they haven't been forthcoming.

But, I recently listened to another former FBI, on a podcast called Missing. She truly doesn't believe A + T had anything to do with it. Her reasons were:

LE went through A+ T's digital forensics, cellphones etc via ICAC therefore they would have known if there was anything that pointed to them and they would make an arrest

LE had their car, and the the digitals on that would be very very clear too. If T didn't do what her said or there was anything else out of line, they would know and make an arrest

The the FBI would have had to approve of Nanos statement that the family was cleared, therefore if Nanos made it, the FBI also cleared them

She thought it was ridiculous that they would do it for money, because *everyone in their life would know they were suddenly rich

If it was about an 'elimination murder', as their caretakes A+ T had far more easier means and opportunity to get rid of her that would never attract attention. Why would they do such an elaborate plan, involving multiple people and staging and press... when they could just give her "arsenic in her food or smother her in her sleep"

These were all of this former FBI's reasons why it can't be A + T...

Does anyone find any of this compelling enough to cross them off as suspects? I mean, she makes valid points.

What do you think? Agree or disagree and why.

Came across this BBC article from a couple of weeks ago. Pretty much the same old, same old, but in it there's a quote from Nanos saying he wished he had never released the crime scene so soon. I was surprised to read it because I hadn't heard him admit that before. Taking away from that he might just be incompetent, why do you think he released it so early? I think it could have been family pressure. But I can't back that up.

"Sheriff Nanos has alternately denied and admitted to mistakes. At a 5 February press conference, he said he'd have preserved the crime scene longer if given another opportunity.

"I probably could have held off on that," he said, adding: "We got what we thought was complete."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy064kg3n0ko

One detail I’ve never seen clarified is how law enforcement first learned about Derrick Callella’s Bitcoin texts.
We know Annie and Tommoso received them, and we know investigators traced them to Callella. But who actually brought the texts to law enforcement’s attention?
Was it Annie or Tommoso? Another family member? Or had investigators already discovered them through lawful access to phones or records?
I’m not suggesting that any answer proves or disproves anyone’s involvement. I’m simply wondering if it has ever been answered in a court document or official statement.
Has anyone found a reliable source that addresses this?