Savannah Guthrie's SUMMER Nightmare Came To Life In A Real Horror Show
Savannah Guthrie’s memoir reveals childhood mock kidnappings by cousin Terry, mirroring the unsettling parallels to her mother Nancy’s real-life abduction—now a 40-suspect FBI-led investigation with procedural risks like confirmation bias and operational overload. Critics question Guthrie’s emotional framing, warning it may overshadow Nancy’s humanity while exposing potential prosecutorial failures. The case underscores how media narratives can distort justice, leaving a chilling legacy of unanswered questions. [Automatically generated summary]
When I say the latest, I'm not going to give you the latest stuff regarding the most mundane aspects of the sad to say the Nancy Guthrie kidnapping, abduction, disappearance, whatever you want to call it.
Because let me tell you what's going to happen.
And I want you to think about this before we get to this big story, which you're not going to believe.
What if one day they say, well, that's it?
What if the kidnappers or whoever says, you know what, this is too hot.
Forget it.
We'll just dispose of.
I'm sorry to say, Mrs. Guthrie.
We'll do our thing.
We'll move on.
We'll go elsewhere.
We'll just go home.
Don't forget to forget the Bitcoin.
Just cut our losses.
They will kill us if they find us.
We're done.
We're finished.
And let's say it just goes away.
Case unclosed.
No closure.
This almighty closure.
What if they just said, that's it?
A week goes by, two weeks, a month.
Harvey Levin doesn't get any more emails.
Nothing.
Sheriff Nannis and others sit back and say, well, I guess that's it.
Think about that.
Your mother, like a lot of parents, like Eitan Pates and kids who were abducted.
What if their mother just is removed?
Just removed.
Never to return, never to be reunited again.
Phony Stories and Removals00:02:58
There's a real possibility to that.
Because this thing has been so botched.
Not only that with amateurs and the like, but here's the story.
Listen to this one.
I couldn't believe this.
I want to tell you about a story about Savannah Guthrie and her cousins.
When she was a kid staging, are you ready for this?
Mock kidnappings.
That's right, in Arizona.
It's a real story.
It comes from her own writing.
In her memoir, Mostly What God Does.
First of all, God bless you.
No point.
But normally, you know, you're going to get this syrupy, I'm my, okay, listen, if it works, far be it from me.
I'm too cynical for this game, I guess.
But in her book, she recounts Summers visiting relatives where her cousin, Terry, would playfully kidnap her, her sister Annie, and other cousins, piling them into a station wagon, driving from Tucson to Phoenix, and then calling him, or them home, rather, from a payphone.
Their mom, Nancy, would act theatrically shocked and eventually come get them after a few days.
Savannah even wrote about joking with her cousin that they would, quote, come get you in a few days.
And the anecdote appears in the context of her reflections on faith and family and childhood memories in Arizona.
That story is not rumor.
It's not speculation.
It's something she chose to share publicly in print about her upbringing, which is fine.
And it's one of those things where you think, this is the weird.
Can you, of all the games they played, of all the games, of all the, I'm not, please, I know people don't, I know she's weird.
And I'm going to say this, and I'm going to say this about her the way I say this about other people too.
Just like when Erica Kirk, oh, you can't say anything, she's a widow.
Nonsense.
If you're acting weird, you're a weird widow or non.
Savannah Guthrie is, I don't think, an intellectual whiz-bang.
I think her thing is she loves to be this grinning kind of everybody's favorite kid sister grinning little Mary Sunshine, whatever the hell you want to call it.
I mean, and she comes across to me as phony, as phony as the day is long.
Games Played00:10:18
But let me just say something.
This is how conspiracy theories get started.
Kidnapping?
So you grew up with the idea of staged pretend kidnapping as a medium?
Wow.
Think about that one.
Now let's talk about current events, what's happening, what's figuring out right now, what's coming and going regarding allegations and regarding this case of Nancy.
And I say this again.
This is a woman who was abducted from her home.
What if they never, ever solve this?
What if they say, and again, I'm going to think about this.
Day one, day two, week two, month two, that's it.
They go cold and they say, okay.
Nobody claims the Bitcoin.
Nobody claims the money.
They sell the house.
It's weird.
Just like, dare I say, so many parents have had to go through.
Now, authorities right now, including the FBI, of course, are investigating.
And family members, including Savannah, have made public pleas, you know, for her safe return.
I don't know what that does.
Look, it couldn't hurt.
Maybe it makes them feel better.
And in the latest aspect of this investigation, the story is not personalities.
It's the process, as they say.
The procedure, the timelines, the evidence handling, investigative logic, and the friction points that can either sharpen a case or kill it or dull it or what have you.
So if you look at the mechanics and talk about what the latest developments are, in somewhat technical terms, there are some moves that look smart, others look risky, others look kind of stupid.
And what's the next measurable proof point?
Remember, proof of life.
Remember, proof of life?
What is proof of life?
What does that even mean?
Nobody even knows.
Nobody even talks about that anymore.
Now, one major development, of Source, is a kind of a canvas operation that's more structured than it looks on camera.
Agents are visiting retail points tied to a narrow set of goods and behaviors, showing a large photo set and asking for recognition and presence and transaction memory and all of this kind of jazz.
And the public hears that, hears that, as they have 40 suspects, that's not what that necessarily means.
It means, operationally, I guess, it means a number of things, perhaps, maybe.
A number of possibilities.
The first possibility, it means a profile basically has been developed based on limited, I don't know, descriptive features.
It's been generated, then cross-reference one would think against multiple databases, one would think, you know, height, range, and weight, and build and age ranges and gait and clothing and silhouette and any visible equipment cues that yields A group of people, like candidate pool.
You then have to push through the pool of sorts, the sampling, and you have to physically canvass because the goal is not a perfect match.
It's a single confirmable hit that becomes a thread, one might think.
And by the way, don't feel bad if a lot of this is read backwards because just like the Hubble expansion theory of the universe, what's going on now should have been done today or should have been the day after.
Now, the second possibility is that the list that they're talking about isn't a suspect list, but a known contact list or something.
People previously stopped, interviewed, cited, looked at again, logged near relevant locations or people connected to either calls for service in that tight radius.
And also keep in mind that a lot of this is not going to be shared with the FBI.
A lot of this was done by this sheriff Nanos.
And that's the part.
How do you, you should have coordination of that.
And in this particular group, the group that they're trying to canvas, that they're trying to deal with, is less about identification and more about, I don't know, verifying alibis and presence and patterns.
They still have, believe it or not, a good group of people that they think might be connected.
Remember, Domaso isn't in that list.
And the next possibility could be the list is perhaps part of investigative control, you know, the equivalent of filler of an identification procedure.
You know, not a lineup in the strict legal sense, but maybe some kind of a practical method to reduce accidental suggestion, see what the witnesses actually recognize.
Who knows?
I think they're just sifting.
They're going back on what they have because it's all been done.
They've scoured the area.
They've looked at all the, they're running DNA matches.
And by the way, if for some reason that Cortis hit, if they put it into the FBI database, wouldn't that be something if all of a sudden they said, hey, guess what?
The blood from this guy, this guy was arrested in such and such.
We know who he is.
We know where he is.
That should have been done a lot earlier.
Now, the downside of all this stuff is that you get cognitive overload.
Recognition reliability drops as the number of images rises.
When you have a lot of people, a lot of pictures, you know, memory is weird.
It's not this, it's not a tape recorder or a DVR.
It's kind of reconstructive.
If you show too many similar faces, the witnesses begin to blend details.
And plus, you also suggest through confirmation bias kind of what you want them to be, photo packs.
That's why the best practice, believe it or not, is to have a kind of a structured interview first, have them recall kind of free recall description, lock down details, and only then show images in a control sequence with documentation of the witness's confidence.
But based upon what they've already said, don't show them a lot of does this one look familiar?
What about this one?
Zeroing in.
Because you're telling them, in essence, it's like, you know, when you get your eyes checked, is it better like this or better like this?
All of this comes into play and all of this becomes critical.
And all of this becomes something which a lot of folks, I mean, at this point, I'm not even sure how this even works.
You know, canvassing is terrific.
It does a lot of stuff.
There's another thing which people want to do is the idea of kind of like suspect elimination and the messaging.
This isn't, it's not really a press statement, but it's a deliberate operational choice.
See, when investigators publicly announce that there's a defined group of people is no longer considered a suspect set, they're doing one or more things, if you think about it.
First, they're, number one, reducing the public interference.
Online speculation drives harassment and doxing and all that other kind of jazz.
And what you're trying to do is to fine-tone and to hone, to hone all the risks or all the lists of possibilities and the like.
When all is sifted, again, this can only be done through coordinated efforts with the FBI.
You don't want to have one group doing this and not the others.
You don't want to have suggestibility, impermissible suggestibility, like in a lineup.
You don't want to basically tell people what you're looking for.
There's operational bias, but also there are some people that you want.
You know this is the person or somebody whose capture would be expedient.
Either way, either way, even that doesn't make any sense.
What I'm trying to tell you, dear friend, is that this is you are now at the point where it doesn't matter.
You can sift.
How do I say this?
I'm going to say something to you which is not meant to be racist or whatever.
When you are involved in a group of people, let's assume that the bulk, the bulk of the individuals of the suspects are, let's say, of Mexican extraction, as we say.
If that's true, and you keep showing people who look the same, and you are not necessarily akin to identifying dissimilarities and similarities within a particular group, it may make identification even more difficult.
The other day I went to, we were at a nail salon, and I was just kind of walking around, just waiting for my wife to finish, and I'm looking, they had the pictures of all these, a lot of these women were Asian.
I don't know if they're Chinese or I don't know where they're from, but anyway, they're Asian.
And they had all of their pictures and the licenses and all of them.
So help me, God, not because they're Asian, but I could not, I'm looking around, I'm saying, who are these people here?
I couldn't identify the people that were in front of me with the picture on their licenses.
Now, is that because, is that an institutional bias on my part where maybe I'm not able to identify with as much accuracy of a particular group who share racial or ethnic similarities?
I'm not trying to give you the old, the all-look-alike thing, but how does this even work?
How Do Faces Match?00:03:06
You've got to understand how this is very, very, very, very serious.
All of these factors, all of these factors play, kind of come into play here.
The biggest deal is going to be how do they back out of this and say, we don't know anything.
We don't know anything at this point.
We have exhausted it.
We have tried everything.
We have looked.
We have asked people.
For all we know, there's another person.
You know there's going to be some of these frauds who come forward and say, give me 50,000.
Now they're asking 50,000.
Give me 50,000 and I'll back off.
Give me 50,000 and I will give you the person you're looking for.
I will give them to you.
How long does that work?
And after a period of time, when alibis and time become cemented for you to reconstruct and say, well, I wasn't near Tucson at the time.
I was over here.
What if alibis can be reconstructed after enough time has elapsed?
Where frankly, we just never know.
What if she is never recovered?
Spirited away apparently in the night, never to return, never, no finality, no closure, no nothing.
And what's going to happen to Tommaso, the brother-in-law?
Is he going to seek some kind of legal action for those people who suggested he was number one?
He was consideration number one.
Maybe, maybe.
But then again, is that defamation?
They weren't making an allegation.
They were saying something that they heard.
This wasn't reckless disregard for the truth.
This wasn't actual malice.
It was just a group of people saying, this is what they're telling us.
I mean, thank God he didn't hurt himself or harm himself or harm others or figure I've got nothing to lose.
So the story is the most important is the kidnapping fantasy story.
What does that mean?
I'm not suggesting that Savannah Guthrie is involved in some kind of kidnapping hoax.
I'm just saying, out of all the games that they could have played in the past, out of all of the stories that could be included in the book, do you not find this at all?
Dare we say interesting?
Interesting.
I still think this will go down in history as incredible prosecutorial law enforcement incompetence.
The Nano's decision, by the way, remember his background.
This is a guy who, when he was challenged for his job by one woman, he put her on administrative leave.
That'll show you.
This guy really thinks he owns this.
Remember, these sheriffs, the sheriff in counties and in parts of the country, hold a power that knows not any similarities that chiefs of police don't have.
And sometimes mayors don't.
So that's a whole other mindset too.
Show Pictures Of Lynn00:02:11
So we will return to this.
Also, I would suggest to Savannah: stop doing your messages.
I don't know what good they do.
I think sometimes it might be better to just show pictures, maybe just show pictures of when you were young or something, but not about you.
Not about these prophetic, strong statements about do the right thing.
No, Because, again, it doesn't matter what people really think, but I would always emphasize that it's about her, what a wonderful person she was and is.
And not about you, not how you're handling it, not your look of concern, but this is our mother.
This is who is missing.
This is this wonderful, beautiful person.
This is us when we were kids to humanize the mother, not to humanize Savannah, which is a very, remember in the same kind of mindset that we see in social media.
I've seen people who've talked about, for example, losing a parent, and before you know it, it becomes about their own particular angst, their own particular sadness, their own particular, you know, loss, then the loss of the mother.
I saw somebody one time at a hospital take a selfie with their mother's hand kind of sticking out of the blanket or out of the sheet, looking covered in IVs and purplish, and the selfie was themselves looking sad and despondent and morose.
And it's disgusting.
What do you think, my friends?
Thank you so much for watching.
Thank you so much for being a part of this.
Thank you so much for including me into your world.
Thanks for following us at Lionel Nation.
Thank you for following my beloved Lynn Shaw at Lynn's Warriors and her fight against human trafficking and against child prediction and for digital safety.
Thank you.
I've got some questions for you in the comment section that I'd like you to answer.