The Nancy Guthrie Missing Person Case: A former FBI criminal profiler has made a shocking assessment, claiming that “the kidnapper likely knew the victim and the surrounding area.” Meanwhile, a statement from Savannah Guthrie has raised further suspicions among the public.

The Nancy Guthrie Missing Person Case: A former FBI criminal profiler has made a shocking assessment, claiming that “the kidnapper likely knew the victim and the surrounding area.” Meanwhile, a statement from Savannah Guthrie has raised further suspicions among the public.

There are new details regarding a second ransom note allegedly sent to some media outlets and the Guthrie family just days after Nancy Guthrie went missing. The 84year-old’s mother of Today’s show host Savannah Guthrie was taken from her Tucson area home on February 1st. The following day, investigators reportedly received a note from the alleged abductors demanding millions in cryptocurrency in exchange for her return.

 But just days later, another message sent from the same IP address on February 6th claimed Nancy had died. On February 7th, Savannah, flanked by her two siblings, posted a video that appeared to directly appeal to the kidnappers. The Today Show host said this quote, “We received your message, and we understand. We beg you now to return our mother to us so that we can celebrate with her.

 This is the only way we will have peace.” In reaction to the latest reporting on the note, Savannah begged anyone who knows any information regarding her mother’s disappearance to come forward. It has been over 21 weeks since Nancy Guthrie disappeared and no suspects have been publicly named. Dr. Ray Carr, a retired FBI special agent, joins Forb’s True Crime to discuss the status of the case.

Hi everybody, I’m Britney Lubis, a breaking news reporter here at Forbes. Joining me once again is Dr. Ray Carr, a retired FBI special agent. Dr. Carr, thank you so much for coming back on. >> Thanks for having me today, Britney. >> You and I spoke back in April about the investigation into the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, and I want to talk about where we are right now, 3 months since that conversation, and now almost 5 months since Nancy Guthrie disappeared back in February.

 And there’s new reporting about the investigation and specifically about the contents of a supposed second ransom note that was sent to various media outlets just days after she was abducted. And the alleged note was from February 6th and it apparently said that Nancy Guthri’s death was unintentional. Whoever took her didn’t know the extent of her health conditions and she had been quote buried with nature.

 So to start off the conversation, what do you make of the news? Well, the thing that got me right away is that uh this happened six days after or five days after she was supposedly abducted and we’re finding out about it five months almost 5 months later, which is um not surprising to me having been in the bureau and things being held back.

But from a point of view trying to find out what’s happening, I mean, there was also um some information that came in about a video uh that some guy has a phone that he’s willing to share with uh with with with the authorities, with the FBI, uh that he has a video uh the day she allegedly died.

 Uh and it also identifies the suspects. And I thought that that was somewhat interesting. But that suggests to me that um at least that there’s now almost definitely more than one person involved in this. >> And so what you just described were emails sent from TMZ and they were allegedly not from the kidnapper. Then these ransom notes, they are allegedly from the kidnapper.

 And when you think about these notes first, and I want to get to the TMZ notes about the video, too. The first one was sent just a day after Nancy Guthrie was kidnapped. They demanded millions of dollars in Bitcoin for her release and that was sent on February 2nd. Then the same IP address sent that note that I talked about um at the beginning.

 But you were a profiler with the FBI. When you read what we know about these notes now, what type of person do you think wrote them? And does that match with the person in your mind, the type of person or people that kidnapped Nancy Guthrie? >> Well, this newest note uh appears to be less like a legitimate ransom communication and more like an attempt to control the narrative.

 Uh the offender, in my estimation, may be testing law enforcement’s reaction or trying to manipulate media coverage by inserting misinformation into the investigation. I think one of the key points here is that this is not about money anymore. This is about power. This is about psychological control. >> It seemed like now looking back at it that Savannah Guthrie and her siblings responded to this second ransom note because that was sent on February 6th and then on February 7th, Savannah was surrounded by both of her siblings and

she released this video and this is what she said in part. We received your message and we understand. We beg you now to return our mother to us so that we can celebrate with her. This is the only way we will have peace. I know that you said that this is about power. Do you think after hearing that and seeing this video now from the lens of what we know, do you still think that this is about power? What do you make of that? >> Yeah, this is about power control by the offender.

 This is um he’s tried to reframe exactly what happened here. uh you know the sender has reference details uh in these communications that suggest to me continuity. However, a lot of times in cases like this that are high-profile, we need to be careful because they often attract copycats folks and opportunistic people and that needs to be seen.

 So, you know, you always want to verify everything with these communications through forensic digital analysis that the FBI is very good at doing. >> And taking a step back even further, why do you think we are just finding out about this now? It’s been five months almost since she went missing, since the family and some news outlets received these notes.

 Why are we learning about it now? Everything the bureau does, there’s a purpose behind it. Now, what that purpose is or what I believe the purpose may be is probably not the same thing that the bureau is trying to do, but apparently they held that close to the best for a reason. What that reason is, I have no idea because I don’t have the intimate details that a lot of the investigators on this case have.

 I wish I did because it would give me more of a more more insight into what’s going on. But um there’s they release things uh in a in a sense where they believe in in my estimation this is where I believe things have kind of dried up a little bit. So I think what the bureau is doing is they’re re you ever when a turkey gets dry and you baste it and you put some juice inside it makes it juicy and it kind of plumps it back up again.

 And I think that’s what the bureau is trying to do here. That’s what law enforcement is trying to do. you’re trying to breathe new life into this case. Hopefully keep it on the front burner rather than on the back burner here. >> To that point, then do you think that indicates that they can’t have a a cyber trail to figure out who this perpetrator is based on these two ransom notes? >> Uh they may they very may well have uh a a trail in reference to this.

 I mean that’s that’s very very possible here. I mean you know you made a statement before and and you look back at at that note and I look at the the phrase buried in nature and I think wow that that’s a really interesting fact to me because the wording is extremely unusual. So I’m looking at this and I’m thinking you know most people when they talk like they have someone buried they’re buried in the woods they’re buried in the desert.

 uh they’re buried outdoors, but buried in nature, it it sounds abstract to me. It sounds the person’s a little detached and it’s almost like poetic. So, a lot of times criminals are going to reveal themselves through their language. So, buried in nature is an unusual phrase because in my estimation, it creates an emotional distance from the act or the offender.

 So I think what it’s what’s happening here is the offender or offenders are trying to sanitize what happened uh and psychologically minimize their responsibility in this whole thing. >> And now I want to go to those notes that you discussed from TMZ because the outlet said they received different notes than the ransom letters.

 They received these emails from this person who claims to not be the kidnapper but knows they say who is responsible. And that person’s also emailed TMZ that at the time time is no longer of the essence. And that phrase made TMZ believe that this person knew something about the case. And the outlet said that about a month ago, they reached out to the FBI and told the agency they wanted to make a documentary and asked if they could pay the person who was demanding Bitcoin for information to see what would come of it. And according to TMZ,

the FBI said that that was interesting, but then ended up ghosting them. And TMZ also reported later last week that the same person reached out to them again and said that there were two kidnappers responsible and they had a phone in a secure location that contains video of what they described as the main guy with Nancy Guthrie the day that was according to this person probably her last pictures of both kidnappers involved and the names and addresses and age and would provide it for a bitcoin.

 What do you make of that information? Well, I never really heard of anybody asking for one bitcoin or for information. Uh, it’s a test. It’s a test by the offender or the individual, which tells me if this this individual was not tied into this, why not just come out and meet on the FBI is very good in maintaining confidentiality.

 So, why not just meet with the FBI? Your name will never appear anywhere. Now you what you’ve done is you put your name out there. But look, I think this it could be another manipulation tactic. But I can tell you this and and law enforcement and my sources in law enforcement can just say that the investigation is active.

 All right? They’re reviewing all these communications. Where they’re going with them, no idea. There’s no arrest yet. And DNA and digital evidence remain central to the case. But now here you get this behavior which can be almost as important as DNA evidence because it’s different from traditional ransom communications.

 You know, a classic ransom communication talks about money, talks about control, talks about how we going to negotiate. I want I want leverage when I’m trying to negotiate with this. this offender or offenders appear to be focusing on controlling the narrative, influencing how the public sees things, and trying to manipulate the family, the media, and law enforcement.

So, it it’s um I think that that’s really really important to make that distinction between these communications. And when you look at either communication, is there any sense to you that there is any sort of remorse? Because I know that you’re saying that that second note is about control. Is there any sense of guilt there that you think? Well, you know, you’re you’re talking about the language that um kind of gives the impression of an apology for NY’s death, saying that it was accidental and it was unintentional.

You know, behaviorally it could if you know, it could indicate genuine remorse, but I think that that’s very unlikely. uh I think uh management of their image is more likely here and I’m also thinking that they’re looking and I think this is important at their position legally. So if the offender is offering a real apology, it would be less about remorse and more about reframing the crime.

 That’s what’s happening here. before the the contents of at least that second note were public. Someone who got the notes, this news director of a local Arizona station who received both notes said that they were different in almost every way. So, when you’re thinking about that now that we know what they are, one was a ransom note demanding money in crypto and then another one was saying that Nancy Guthrie had unfortunately passed away.

When you’re thinking of that and then the crime that occurred here, do you think that this was m uh money crime gone wrong? >> Well, you have to remember in most of these things before law enforcement is going to uh okay or kind of set the wheels in motion to pay money. They want proof of life. They weren’t able to provide that.

 And now we know why. Uh and law enforcement knew that all along. They knew that early on because they had this note. But the offender here also was aware of that and there’s a lot of stress on him. There’s a a lot of guilt that’s going on. But the offender is trying to portray this that is accidental rather than intentional which psychologically for them is self-protective and it’s kind of like a strategic move uh legally.

 So when you look at the behavior analysis that are looking at this offender, he’s trying to reduce uh his perceived culpability to this crime. Look, wasn’t my fault. How I didn’t know she was going to die, you know, and and we don’t even know if that’s the case at this point. >> And I am curious because there is a reward. It’s over a million dollars.

 The Guthrie family is offering a million dollar reward for the return of Nancy in addition to the FBI offering $100,000. Are you surprised no one has come forward yet 5 months into this and offered anything? And if no one has come forward now, do you think they ever will? >> Yes, I do. I think that someone will.

 Am I surprised that no one’s come forward as of yet? Not really. Uh I believe that uh time changes everything. Relationships change over time. Friends don’t become friends anymore. Girlfriend, boyfriend don’t become they kind of break up. So there’s a lot of things that can happen here. And time is our is really uh our best ally here.

It’s our best asset. So, I think over time, uh, you’re going to find that someone will come forward that’s going to offer a key piece of evidence, uh, that’s going to lead to the solving of this case. >> The Puma County Sheriff’s Department said that this investigation, they reportedly told other news outlets, is still active and ongoing.

 You told me back in April that you think that this case is going to get solved. Do you still think that now as we sit here at the end of June? Yes, I do. Yes, I do. I mean, it took uh six months to solve the Lindberg case back in 1932 and he died within four hours. The Exxon Mobile took over four months and he was dead within four days.

So, I’ve seen these things. I haven’t participated in things that have gone this long, but I’ve seen them and I’ve studied them. Uh because we always look at uh the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. So, we’re always looking at these type of things, Britney. And yeah, I do believe it’s going to be solved. I really do.

 I have a lot of faith in law enforcement. >> I know that you said that this is like adding more juice to this case, revitalizing it. Let’s say you were tapped in. You were just put on this case as an FBI special agent today. What would you do immediately to change the tide here? Well, I don’t know if I could change the tie, but I can tell you what I would do immediately. I would go back to day one.

And I would review every single thing that was done and not done and then redone and find out where the mistakes were made, if there were mistakes made, and see what we can do to find to put us on the right trajectory. Jack, you have to remember something. The Puma County Sheriff’s Department had this case for four almost five days before the bureau came in.

It’s very imagine and anybody that’s out there is listening, imagine taking a class and you know the class is three weeks long and the first week of class you miss it and you have to come in and you have to catch up. You ever catch up or do you miss things that you may never find out? You remember that that TV show The first 48 when you look at homicides the first 48 hours how important they are.

 It’s the same thing here when the child abduction response team at the FBI has, you know, they would put us out there within within hours of an abduction of a child knowing how important it is to have that information to have us on the ground. And with when they didn’t allow the FBI in in the very beginning of this investigation, they really did a disservice uh to the victim and to the law enforcement officers that were there because they didn’t have the expertise that the bureau does.

What specifically as from the lens of a former FBI special agent, what specifically are you looking out for next as we see this case progress? >> I’m looking for uh someone getting arrested and someone trying to save themselves from doing life in prison and say, “Hey, I have some information uh that I heard from a guy that knows a guy that knows a guy.

” and that’s how it kind of starts. Uh so I think that that’s what’s going to happen there and then the forensics that they have will be able to tie it back to those individuals. But I think the behavior that’s going on here right now when you when you look at this when when you look my assessment is basically that this was a plan abduction that went terribly wrong. They had the victim targeted.

 uh the offender or offenders underestimated the complexity of this case and there was a death that occurred. Uh I don’t think they planned for that. The other scenario uh and I have like three of these things in my mind but the other scenario is that the financial motive kind of shifted into a panic. The original motive may have been geared towards ransom or extortion, but things changed rapidly.

 And I really believe that the fender, the offender or offenders are known to the victim and to the area. I think the planning of this, the timing of this, the confidence around the residents leads me to believe that there is familiarity with uh Nancy Guthri’s routines. uh the neighborhood and um security vulnerabilities.

 I mean, they went right to the security camera. They This is This was not their first time at Nancy Guthri’s home. >> So, and I know the bureau is looking at that. >> And to that point then, how well do you think they knew her routines? They knew her home. They knew her as a person. >> That’s a great question. And I wish I wish I could answer that.

 I don’t know if they knew her personally, but they were familiar with her. They’ve been there before. Um just too many things that that I’ve seen at the crime scene, which is very limited. Um that lead me to believe that that wouldn’t happen unless I knew about it. Unless I knew or I was there before to go to those places, the back door, the front door.

 I don’t know what the inside looked like. I have no idea. But um this case is no longer just about physical evidence. Uh it’s about behavioral evidence, linguistics analysis that they’re looking at these uh communications that are coming in. And you have to look at the offender psychology. The communications are ultimately going to reveal as much about the offender as DNA and surveillance.

>> I really believe that. And when you’re looking at the communications, I was just thinking because this person allegedly has, if this is the person, has reached out multiple times. Do you get the sense that they could be feeling perhaps cocky that it seems like they got away with the crime that has been, you know, the national headlines in the past five months. They feel cocky.

 They tell maybe one too many people. someone sees that reward and starts talking or has a conscience and starts talking about what they heard. >> You know, um if you’re cocky, here’s the thing. Initially, when you look at this crime, I think it was it was organized. Okay. Um so, you might might be able to be a little cocky about that.

 I mean, they they did a little bit of pre-surveillance. They were aware of the cameras. They wore gloves. They had masks on. that was apparently that was planning uh the removal of the victim, but then when they got into the communications, it kind of went south a little bit. Uh the communications were kind of repeated.

 There was emotional leakage. What I mean by that is that and and I’m sure you’re going to see some of those. When we mean emotional leakage is language or behavior that’s going to be noticeable by people that are close to these individuals. And I talked about this numerous times and the demands keep changing.

 So is it different individuals? The motives have been inconsistent of what they’re looking for. So you you look at this and you think I think that the abduction itself was organized. Not a doubt in my mind. But the post crime communications uh they appear to me to be increasingly disorganized and emotionally unstable. This suggests to me that the offender or offenders are under stress.

 Um there’s a little bit of conflict going on and there’s a growing fear that they’re going to be captured. Now you have to remember that the notes are, you know, five months old, almost five months old that we’re talking about. But this new thing that’s coming in, it’s just it’s just so um so convoluted. It’s weird to me.

 It’s just and I wish I was in on the ground floor. I swear I wish I was. These are the these are the days where I miss the job. I’m just grateful for your perspective and your expertise here as someone who has been on the job before, but I know you told me last time that we only know the tip of the iceberg that law enforcement knows both the FBI and the Puma County Sheriff’s Department, but what based on what we all do know, what mistake do you think is going to trip up this offender or offenders? What I think is going to happen is uh people have a tendency

to profit themselves. What I mean by that is people have a tendency to brag. People if if you if you know human behavior, it’s very very difficult for individuals to maintain a secret. They have to tell somebody. You’re my best friend. I’m going to tell you, but you can’t tell anybody else. That’s all it’s going to take.

 And I think if you have two people involved, it’s a little bit easier to keep it close to the vest. But eventually, I may become very angry with that person and say, or I may be getting locked up and say, I have information. If you give me immunity, I’ll tell you what happened. Wasn’t me. It was it was him.

 It was her. So I I I believe that that emotional leakage I believe that that one slip up that someone hears something where someone talks about something and someone goes, “Well, that’s kind of strange. Why would they say that about that case unless they knew something about it and then you have the money involved and people say, “Well, if I say something and that’s them people that those are the individuals, I may wind up making some money here.

” So it’s it’s it’s going to happen. It’s going to happen. Britney, >> do you think that because this case is getting not renewed interest, I would say, but a lot more attention the over the past week because of the contents of that alleged second ransom note. Do you think this would encourage law enforcement to drip out more information of what they know about this that the public is not yet privy to? You may you may see that if and the look everything the bureau does there’s a purpose why they do it. They just don’t do

things just to to give give the the FBI publicity. The FBI doesn’t need publicity. So they do things that are going to be beneficial to the investigation. Uh and and a lot of people use the terminology tickle the wire, you know, where you do this or that. I mean that’s that’s an old adage. Uh but they’ll do things to uh that’s going to be in their benefit and it’s going to benefit them.

It’s going to benefit the case. Uh and trust me, the bureau and law enforcement, the Pima County Sheriff’s Department want this want this case solved more than anybody, as much as the family does. They really do. And I have a lot of faith in in in in both agencies. And I think that um if they continue to work together and they’re going to get a break and that’s all they need is one break that just kind of it runs and it’s I’ve seen it happen a h 100 times.

 All of a sudden there’s there’s nothing. It looks like the doors close and then it just opens a little bit and there’s a ray of light and you go, “Oh my goodness, let’s go.” I’ve seen it a hundred times. >> This case is really just heartbreaking. Every case regarding a missing person is. But just seeing every time Savannah talks about it, the pain is so palpable.

It’s so real. It’s just it’s really heartbreaking to see. And I mean, the main questions are what happened to Nancy Guthrie? Where is she? Also, who would kidnap an 84 year old woman from her home and take her? My last question to you is because you have that law enforcement perspective, what specifically are you looking out for next that we should keep our eye on? behavior that is um from an individual that you know.

 I mean, look, I’m I’m positive that there’s people out there that are suspicious of other people, but are afraid to say something because if I say something and I’m wrong, I’m going to ruin that person’s life. But my my my advice to you is imagine the lives that are being ruined and are being affected by you not saying so.

You know, it’s the same thing when you look at behavior of an individual that gets involved in a mass shooting, an active shooter, and you go, “Ah, geez, I wish I would have said something because I saw it. I knew that we all have an indication. My thing is if you feel something, let law enforcement know. They’re not going to ruin someone’s life.

 We’ll take a look at it and they’ll make sure if they’re going to arrest somebody, trust me, they’ll make sure they have their eyes dotted and their tees crossed before they do anything. And you’re not going to hurt anybody to what you’re doing by not saying something. And then you have to understand that there’s thousands of leads that are probably coming in.

 And the great thing about the FBI, and I at least I know about the FBI, I can’t speak for Yuma County, but the FBI, they’ll review every single lead. It doesn’t matter what it is or how minuted it is, they will look at every single lead. And the other thing is that the FBI never goes away. So, if I’m on this case and there’s fugitive cases that were 10 years old that I picked up from other agents and I ran with it like was my case from day one and we never stop trying to find or trying to solve something. So, it’ll never go away.

It’ll always the law enforcement will always be focused in on this. Someone will be, trust me. >> And we hope that we see plenty of developments out of this case. And as we do, Dr. Carr, I hope you can come back on and break them down for us. Thank you so so much for your expertise. I really appreciate your perspective today.

 You are welcome back anytime. >> Thanks, Britney. It was a pleasure. It was great being here. Thank you so much.