Anonymous wrote:I’m watching and I also think that is what happened. She has no cognitive issues, in the make sure to emphasize that her house was not quite right.

This is terrible, and I really hope she wasn’t kidnapped for ransom or for political reasons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TMZ is reporting that the ransom note included something not disclosed by law enforcement or noticeable on b-roll: the placement of her Apple watch.

I would suppose this is something more specific than "on her nightstand" but maybe as something they placed specifically to be able to show authenticity.

So why aren't the kidnappers giving the family proof of life so they can collect their money and end this?

Possibly because something went wrong. I think that’s what happened with the Lindbergh baby. It may also be that they don’t really know how to send a proof of life without leaving a digital trace. It’s someone easier to do the email in advance but if you’re doing a live video or something like that….it will be hard to hide where you are. I guess they could do a secret that only Nancy would know but if she’s out of it due to her mediation issue maybe that isn’t possible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TMZ is reporting that the ransom note included something not disclosed by law enforcement or noticeable on b-roll: the placement of her Apple watch.

I would suppose this is something more specific than "on her nightstand" but maybe as something they placed specifically to be able to show authenticity.

So why aren't the kidnappers giving the family proof of life so they can collect their money and end this?

Possibly because something went wrong. I think that’s what happened with the Lindbergh baby. It may also be that they don’t really know how to send a proof of life without leaving a digital trace. It’s someone easier to do the email in advance but if you’re doing a live video or something like that….it will be hard to hide where you are. I guess they could do a secret that only Nancy would know but if she’s out of it due to her mediation issue maybe that isn’t possible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sort of weird that there was no motive for several days and then suddenly there was a ransom note -- sent to media outlets. The whole things seems weird.

I think the ransom demands were sent to the local stations earlier and they kept it quiet, but TMZ did TMZ. Maybe the kidnapper wanted coverage of the ransom demand and when the local outlets didn't report it (probably at the request of LE) he went to TMZ knowing they would put it out there.

Yes, I read KVOA, KUAT, etc, all the local stations received a copy, and immediately took it to law enforcement that told them not to publish, so they didn't. TMZ got a copy a day later and published THEN took it to law enforcement after publishing. I don't know whether the local stations got it before the news of the disappearance went out though -- obviously if they got it before then, that increases the credibility of the demand. I assume law enforcement has tried to track the emails -- unfortunately, I think any basic criminal (or preteen) now knows how to route an email to disguise the origin.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TMZ is reporting that the ransom note included something not disclosed by law enforcement or noticeable on b-roll: the placement of her Apple watch.

I would suppose this is something more specific than "on her nightstand" but maybe as something they placed specifically to be able to show authenticity.

So why aren't the kidnappers giving the family proof of life so they can collect their money and end this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I was thinking the same thing this morning. I also think that the ransom note is fake or a distraction. I don’t think they had/have her or she is already dead.

I also don’t think it’s the brother-in-law. I just can’t imagine why someone would take her in the middle of the night without stealing anything or without an obvious motive.

If she answered the door, it was someone she knew. The sheriff said yesterday it was not forced entry so it implies it was someone who knew her. The police department can’t let the sis and BiL know they’re on to them in case they try to escape to Mexico. They have to play it close to the chest and not freak out any suspects. The key to this case is if there was forced entry or not. Savannah’s mother still had her faculties and no doubt would’ve called 911 if a stranger was knocking at her door in the middle of the night

Anonymous wrote:A CNA or nurse or house cleaner who comes in to help on a regular basis would know where the Apple Watch is kept. My guess is it’s someone connected to her like that.

Anonymous wrote:TMZ is reporting that the ransom note included something not disclosed by law enforcement or noticeable on b-roll: the placement of her Apple watch.

I would suppose this is something more specific than "on her nightstand" but maybe as something they placed specifically to be able to show authenticity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Did you forget the dentist and his wife recently killed? The police went right to the house when he was late for work. This 24 hour thing exists in your head.

It depends how connected you are to the cops. I remember Karina Vetrano was reported missing by her dad a few hours after she went missing and she was found by the dad and his neighbor (a police chief) at 9pm that night. She was 30 yet cops didn’t wait 24 hours to complete a missing person search but I know cops sometimes wait more than 24 hours for underage teenagers (15+)

So it really depends on the person or circumstances. Which is how it should be.

No, it depends on how connected you are to the cops. Apparently, knowing a cop and searching and finding a dead body with a cop ala John Ramsey is ok.

No, it really doesn't. Stop with your nonsense.

Yes, it does. Knowing the cops helps. Why do you think drug kingpins use to befriend police officers and donate to police departments? Cops aren’t the brightest tools in the shed. It’s easy for sociopath to call 911, report a “missing person, and then discover the dead body while accompanied by a friend/cop. John Ramsey found the body because he knew she was dead not missing

Your tinfoil hat is on too tight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Did you forget the dentist and his wife recently killed? The police went right to the house when he was late for work. This 24 hour thing exists in your head.

It depends how connected you are to the cops. I remember Karina Vetrano was reported missing by her dad a few hours after she went missing and she was found by the dad and his neighbor (a police chief) at 9pm that night. She was 30 yet cops didn’t wait 24 hours to complete a missing person search but I know cops sometimes wait more than 24 hours for underage teenagers (15+)

So it really depends on the person or circumstances. Which is how it should be.

No, it depends on how connected you are to the cops. Apparently, knowing a cop and searching and finding a dead body with a cop ala John Ramsey is ok.

No, it really doesn't. Stop with your nonsense.

Yes, it does. Knowing the cops helps. Why do you think drug kingpins use to befriend police officers and donate to police departments? Cops aren’t the brightest tools in the shed. It’s easy for sociopath to call 911, report a “missing person, and then discover the dead body while accompanied by a friend/cop. John Ramsey found the body because he knew she was dead not missing

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Did you forget the dentist and his wife recently killed? The police went right to the house when he was late for work. This 24 hour thing exists in your head.

It depends how connected you are to the cops. I remember Karina Vetrano was reported missing by her dad a few hours after she went missing and she was found by the dad and his neighbor (a police chief) at 9pm that night. She was 30 yet cops didn’t wait 24 hours to complete a missing person search but I know cops sometimes wait more than 24 hours for underage teenagers (15+)

So it really depends on the person or circumstances. Which is how it should be.

No, it depends on how connected you are to the cops. Apparently, knowing a cop and searching and finding a dead body with a cop ala John Ramsey is ok.

No, it really doesn't. Stop with your nonsense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Did you forget the dentist and his wife recently killed? The police went right to the house when he was late for work. This 24 hour thing exists in your head.

It depends how connected you are to the cops. I remember Karina Vetrano was reported missing by her dad a few hours after she went missing and she was found by the dad and his neighbor (a police chief) at 9pm that night. She was 30 yet cops didn’t wait 24 hours to complete a missing person search but I know cops sometimes wait more than 24 hours for underage teenagers (15+)

So it really depends on the person or circumstances. Which is how it should be.

No, it depends on how connected you are to the cops. Apparently, knowing a cop and searching and finding a dead body with a cop ala John Ramsey is ok.