New Nancy Guthrie Surveillance Photos Uncovered as Source Reveals What May Finally ‘Crack the Case’—’It’s Just a Matter of…’
The Nancy Guthrie investigation has felt like a series of dead ends after another. All we know is this: Nancy, Savannah Guthrie’s mom, was abducted from her house in the early hours of February 1. She has not been seen since. And though police have released surveillance photos and video of a suspect, and DNA has reportedly been recovered, no one has been identified.
And now, the FBI has reportedly recovered new still images taken by surveillance cameras on the property, but those have not turned up anything suspicious. The images, captured by motion-activated cameras, show people in the back and side yard in Guthrie’s home in the time leading to the disappearance and after, as law enforcement arrived.
Related: Who are Savannah Guthrie’s siblings?
Police have previously been investigating the possibility that the subject seen in the first surveillance photos and videos released could have been carrying a signal jammer. That would explain why there’s not much clear footage of the suspect.
“The Pima County Sheriff’s Department continues to analyze various forms of evidence in the Nancy Guthrie case, including material from laboratories as well as images and videos captured by cameras,” the latest law enforcement release said.
Brian Entin, who has been covering the case from the beginning, said in Friday’s episode of Brian Entin Investigates that the case will likely be solved like most cases are solved these days. “I really believe, at the end of the day, DNA is what may crack this case,” he said.
“The DNA is important — obviously, with any case, but especially with this case — because it doesn’t seem like there’s been a lot of other solid leads. And remember, the big piece of DNA, that I think is going to end up being the most important, is the DNA that was found in Nancy’s home … is a stranger’s DNA, so it could be the suspect’s DNA.”
In the episode, Entin spoke with April Stonehouse, a professor of practice at Arizona State University’s School of Interdisciplinary Forensics.
“I would be hopeful that [investigators] found at least a few items of evidence because, by virtue of the fact [the suspect is] in a home he doesn’t belong in, he is going to leave some of his DNA behind,” Stonehouse said. “Now, he’s obviously taking measures to try and avoid leaving his DNA behind. He’s wearing gloves. He’s wearing a mask. But we know scientifically that they will leave behind traces of their DNA. It’s just a matter of locating it and finding it.”
And having something to compare it to.
Stonehouse said that the DNA processing has actually been done very fast. “They ran that blood immediately,” she said. “When that all came back to match the victim, then they found themselves in the position of having to go back and submit additional items of evidence for testing. And so when they worked the blood, they wouldn’t have known what the results were until they actually got the results back. … It’s part of this process of working items, seeing what the results are, and then if the results aren’t helpful, working more items of evidence to try and advance the investigation.”
She was also optimistic that DNA could end up being the key. “And the DNA in that case single-handedly made the difference in figuring out her identity and who had perpetrated that crime,” she said. “And so yes, DNA, and to your point about if DNA is left behind, yes, it could be left behind in very, very small quantities. Sometimes half the battle is just finding where it’s located.”
