Savannah Guthrie’s mom is missing, suspect kidnapping

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If burglars arrived, the cameras would have caught the footage. They cannot disable cameras in advance, only a relative or family caretaker can do that

Wrong. It is very easy to disable wifi cameras and you don't have to be that close to them to do it.

I agree that I think it is a family member or someone close to them.

The reason why I don’t think it is is because this is not a typical case. if this were a younger person, police would not have gotten involved as quickly - if she hadn’t shown up at church and she was young and healthy the police would’ve asked to give it more time.

Because she was 84 and a huge reason older people go missing is because they wander off, they got the police involved earlier. Further, this is not a typical case, it’s incredibly high profile.

So the typical family member did it is weird to me because this person, to get away with it for a week, would’ve had to be really organized and really outsmarting federal agents very quickly.

I’m just thinking of the last two high profile kidnappings that I know of, Elizabeth Smart, and the young girl, Jamie I think, who was kidnapped at her home and eventually escaped (sadly, the kidnapper had killed her parents to get her). In both instances it was a random stranger who had been watching them, but was not known to the family. that makes it much harder to find because instead of a pool with like 12 people to investigate you have to investigate the world.

Clearly the motive for the two young girls were very different than Savannah‘s mother but again this being such a high profile case, it feels weird that a random family member would be so good at this. I just saw on morning Joe that NBC corporate security is working with Savannah to see about past threats, etc.

There have been several missing women the police got involved with early only to find their lying husbands killed them? High profile like Laci Peterson, Ana Walshe or Jennifer Dulos? Police get involved when it's unusual for someone to be missing. An elderly person, mother, child, etc.

Most police stations have two groups investigating when there is a missing person … one group investigates it as homicide, and the other group investigates it as a missing person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really feel for this family.

BUT this story taking the first ten minutes of the news on multiple channels several days in a row is completely bonkers.

You don’t understand people make a big deal about things that happened to their own?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only read the first few and last few pages of this thread.... Did we already discuss why Savannah was reading? I would have figured that she could speak from the heart about how distraught she was and wanted her mom's safe return. Even if she was reading, as an on-air journalist she could at least have gotten thru a sentence without obviously looking down every few words.

I suspect the words are very carefully scripted and they asked her to use them and only them precisely.

She was also very un made up and I think she emphasized just being a regular person. I wondered if the reading was to make her look less slick. That seemed to be an image they were trying to project.

Her mom is missing!! She probably hadn’t slept in days, had been crying, etc. How would you look and how sharp would you be if you were under that kind of stress?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:News conference: 1:47 am to 2:28 am is timeframe between someone detected and pacemaker pinging. The manufacturer of camera cannot pull any video at this point.
Blood on steps is Nancy’s.

Whoever made that security camera should be out of business. They knew there was a problem within 24 hours and they can’t recover that tape? What a waste of money.

What idiotic comments. Recovering tape? This isn't 1990. Security cameras manage data storage in different ways. Are these wireless vs wired cameras? Some wireless cameras store the data on the camera itself. Some store it on a home base or if you want it can be stored in the cloud. There are also numerous ways the cameras could have been disabled without touching them. Many people don't want their data stored on a cloud or transmitted via wifi.

+1 also she could have multiple cameras all from different companies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have ring cameras and don't pay for a subscription. They were installed by the previous homeowner. I like them even without the subscription. I work from home and I like to see who's at the door or in the driveway. I like the ability to click on the camera in the app and look out onto the street from anywhere, whether we are home or not. Sounds like Ms Guthrie wanted it for the same purposes, plus to view any potential wildlife, which is a real thing in az.

Sure, we can afford it, but it's just another bill and we feel it's not necessary.

+1 many use it just for this—as a doorbell. They might even have another layered security system, but use Ring for the doorbell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have ring cameras and don't pay for a subscription. They were installed by the previous homeowner. I like them even without the subscription. I work from home and I like to see who's at the door or in the driveway. I like the ability to click on the camera in the app and look out onto the street from anywhere, whether we are home or not. Sounds like Ms Guthrie wanted it for the same purposes, plus to view any potential wildlife, which is a real thing in az.

Sure, we can afford it, but it's just another bill and we feel it's not necessary.

+1, but in DCUM-world, money grows on trees and they happily will pay for any subscription service. DCUM loves to waste money!

yes, there was just a special on TV saying how millions are paying for multiple streaming subscriptions and that the new year is a good time to consider canceling some

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really feel for this family.

BUT this story taking the first ten minutes of the news on multiple channels several days in a row is completely bonkers.

I disagree. This is pretty big news because of who Savannah Guthrie is, she is a nationally well-known figure and journalist. She’s very popular and well liked with viewers and it also has the attention of even the White House. All that put together means big news in all the networks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have ring cameras and don't pay for a subscription. They were installed by the previous homeowner. I like them even without the subscription. I work from home and I like to see who's at the door or in the driveway. I like the ability to click on the camera in the app and look out onto the street from anywhere, whether we are home or not. Sounds like Ms Guthrie wanted it for the same purposes, plus to view any potential wildlife, which is a real thing in az.

Sure, we can afford it, but it's just another bill and we feel it's not necessary.

+1 many use it just for this—as a doorbell. They might even have another layered security system, but use Ring for the doorbell.

If it's just a doorbell, then people shouldn't have this expectation that the footage would be available later if something happens. It's real time only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really feel for this family.

BUT this story taking the first ten minutes of the news on multiple channels several days in a row is completely bonkers.

I disagree. This is pretty big news because of who Savannah Guthrie is, she is a nationally well-known figure and journalist. She’s very popular and well liked with viewers and it also has the attention of even the White House. All that put together means big news in all the networks.

Also, as a true crime follower, it’s not every day a woman is abducted in the middle of the night and possibly held for ransom. The motive is totally unclear - maybe it’s financial but if so, what? It’s unlikely sexual or a domestic dispute. The facts of the case are actually quite unusual. Add to it the relative of a celebrity and of course there is going to be interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really feel for this family.

BUT this story taking the first ten minutes of the news on multiple channels several days in a row is completely bonkers.

I disagree. This is pretty big news because of who Savannah Guthrie is, she is a nationally well-known figure and journalist. She’s very popular and well liked with viewers and it also has the attention of even the White House. All that put together means big news in all the networks.

Also, as a true crime follower, it’s not every day a woman is abducted in the middle of the night and possibly held for ransom. The motive is totally unclear - maybe it’s financial but if so, what? It’s unlikely sexual or a domestic dispute. The facts of the case are actually quite unusual. Add to it the relative of a celebrity and of course there is going to be interest.

If you’re a true crime follower, you may have gone down the internet/reddit rabbit hole of speculation that Savannah’s moms disappearance is linked to Epstein, because Savannah did the first interview with Virginia Guiffre and other survivors. The interview is mentioned quite a few times in the Epstein files.

[Anonymous]

I eagerly hop online daily to see if she has been found yet.

So far nada.
It is almost a week since she has been seen and it does not look good at all.
She likely needs her pacemaker as well as her medication which she has not had any access to for this long.

I wonder what motive someone evil would have to whisk away an old lady in the early morning hours.
It doesn’t appear to be money since it appears her kids are willing to negotiate any ransom amount at this stage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really feel for this family.

BUT this story taking the first ten minutes of the news on multiple channels several days in a row is completely bonkers.

I disagree. This is pretty big news because of who Savannah Guthrie is, she is a nationally well-known figure and journalist. She’s very popular and well liked with viewers and it also has the attention of even the White House. All that put together means big news in all the networks.

CBS interrupted their regular broadcast yesterday to show the sheriff's press conference live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only read the first few and last few pages of this thread.... Did we already discuss why Savannah was reading? I would have figured that she could speak from the heart about how distraught she was and wanted her mom's safe return. Even if she was reading, as an on-air journalist she could at least have gotten thru a sentence without obviously looking down every few words.

I suspect the words are very carefully scripted and they asked her to use them and only them precisely.

She was also very un made up and I think she emphasized just being a regular person. I wondered if the reading was to make her look less slick. That seemed to be an image they were trying to project.

Her mom is missing!! She probably hadn’t slept in days, had been crying, etc. How would you look and how sharp would you be if you were under that kind of stress?

I thought Savannah looked younger than her age and vulnerable. This is her mom and possibly the kidnapping is related to her public position. I agree she read the statement because it had been carefully worded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If burglars arrived, the cameras would have caught the footage. They cannot disable cameras in advance, only a relative or family caretaker can do that

Wrong. It is very easy to disable wifi cameras and you don't have to be that close to them to do it.

I agree that I think it is a family member or someone close to them.

The reason why I don’t think it is is because this is not a typical case. if this were a younger person, police would not have gotten involved as quickly - if she hadn’t shown up at church and she was young and healthy the police would’ve asked to give it more time.

Because she was 84 and a huge reason older people go missing is because they wander off, they got the police involved earlier. Further, this is not a typical case, it’s incredibly high profile.

So the typical family member did it is weird to me because this person, to get away with it for a week, would’ve had to be really organized and really outsmarting federal agents very quickly.

I’m just thinking of the last two high profile kidnappings that I know of, Elizabeth Smart, and the young girl, Jamie I think, who was kidnapped at her home and eventually escaped (sadly, the kidnapper had killed her parents to get her). In both instances it was a random stranger who had been watching them, but was not known to the family. that makes it much harder to find because instead of a pool with like 12 people to investigate you have to investigate the world.

Clearly the motive for the two young girls were very different than Savannah‘s mother but again this being such a high profile case, it feels weird that a random family member would be so good at this. I just saw on morning Joe that NBC corporate security is working with Savannah to see about past threats, etc.

There have been several missing women the police got involved with early only to find their lying husbands killed them? High profile like Laci Peterson, Ana Walshe or Jennifer Dulos? Police get involved when it's unusual for someone to be missing. An elderly person, mother, child, etc.

Right, but the people that you named were younger able-bodied adults. And in those cases, they will wait 24 hours unless you can show extenuating circumstances. If your husband promised you’d be home from work and he’s two hours late, the police aren’t going to start an investigation, sorry. Even if you think it’s concerning. What I’m pointing out is this is different than a typical domestic violence case because the woman was elderly, so the police got involved quicker than they normally would.

Add to the fact that this is going to be an incredibly high profile case because it’s a national figures mother, and it just would be odd that some bumbling relative who wanted to get some money or had a bone to pick would be getting away with it for this long. That’s all I’m saying.

The age of the woman, and therefore the speed of a police investigation, and the high profile nature of this case, makes it seem like this is a more organized attack than just a disgruntled relative.

[Anonymous]

Sad to say but they're most likely looking for a body at this point. She has been missing almost a week come tomorrow.