Sheriff not talking to Nancy Guthrie’s family, acknowledges ‘frustration’ according to reports

Pima County Sheriff Nanos confirmed in a People magazine interview that he is no longer directly communicating with the Nancy Guthrie family, stating that the FBI is now handling those conversations. This is notable as Nanos's office technically remains in charge of the investigation.

Sheriff Nanos stated, 'he is no longer directly communicating with the Guthrie family and says those conversations are being handled by the FBI.'

Sheriff Nanos acknowledged that both the public and the Guthrie family are frustrated with the lack of progress in the investigation, which has stretched over 100 days without resolution.

Sheriff Nanos stated, 'the public is frustrated even the Guthrie family.'

Nanos expressed optimism about the DNA evidence, suggesting that investigators are 'getting closer' to identifying the contributor. He defined the point at which a case would become 'cold' as when forensic labs indicate they can do 'nothing else' with the available evidence.

Nanos said, 'I know we have DNA that is unknown who the contributor or depositor is, but I think they're getting closer to finding out who that was.' He added, 'When the labs tell us, hey, there's nothing else we can do. Well, then maybe we've got a problem. We've got a cold case.'

Sheriff Nanos disputed claims of tension between his agency and the FBI, stating that coordination began 'soon after learning of NY's disappearance' and that the FBI was involved 'day one.' He also denied mishandling the scene or delaying search efforts.

Nanos 'denied the claim of tension between the FBI and his agency' and said, 'The FBI was with us day one. We've always had a working relationship.'

Law enforcement expert Morgan Wright stated it is 'unusual for the originating agency... not to be in communication with the victim's family,' especially when they retain investigative authority.

Morgan Wright commented, 'It's unusual for the originating agency, the investigative agency who has originating authority, which the sheriff does, not to be in communicate with the not to be in communication with the victim's family.'

Wright raised concerns about the context of the DNA evidence, specifically a rootless hair strand, given that the crime scene was uncontrolled for a period. He highlighted that DNA lacks a timestamp, making it difficult to determine when it was deposited and if it's relevant to the crime.

Wright stated, 'DNA does not come with a date and time stamp on it. You don't know when that h hair was deposited or by who? ... The fact that the crime scene was uncontrolled for a certain period of time. Could that have been introduced?'

Morgan Wright theorized that the suspect's primary motivation for removing the Ring camera was to conceal the vehicle used in the abduction, not their own identity. He noted the suspect's disguise made personal identification difficult, but a vehicle is easily traceable.

Wright concluded, 'The whole purpose of removing the ring camera... was he disguised himself what he could not disguise was a vehicle so you remove the camera because you don't want it transmitting a picture of the vehicle.'

Based on his training and experience, Wright asserted that the evidence points to a targeted abduction rather than a burglary gone wrong. He argued that a burglar would not typically shift to kidnapping as a 'least risky alternative' due to the different skill sets and planning required for control and exfiltration.

Wright stated, 'You would be hardressed to find cases of where somebody that went in to do a burglary decided that kidnapping was the least risky alternative to getting out of the house.' He concluded, 'Circumstantially, all the evidence points to an abduction.'

Wright criticized the sheriff's approach to cataloging all vehicles from surveillance footage. He suggested an 'inverted' strategy: identify all vehicles within a specific time window leaving the area and then work backward to identify vehicles of interest, which would be a smaller, more manageable dataset.

Wright proposed, 'I would instead reverse it. I would say, 'Look, you've got all this video.' Well, we know the vehicle couldn't have left could have wouldn't have left no later than probably 228. ... I'd simply reverse it. I say, 'What vehicle traffic do I have in this time window?' And I would slide this window through and I would say, 'What vehicles do I have going through? Those are my vehicles of interest.''

Wright explained that identifying the suspect from the doorbell video is difficult due to the mask, the potential for the offender to be non-local (lacking prior law enforcement contact in the area), and the possibility of a single, lone-wolf operator who can more easily keep a secret.

Wright noted, 'The mask makes it difficult to do. ... if the person is not from this area ... the chances of them having prior contact with law enforcement in that area is minimal.' He added, 'one person probably can [keep a secret].'