And we’ve talked about this before, but I think we need to go into a little more detail today because from everything that we’ve learned publicly, Nancy returned home from dinner that evening on January the 31st, but her her nightly medication was reportedly never taken.
And if her routine was interrupted before she ever had the chance to settle in that evening, then we have to ask an entirely different question.
Was someone already waiting inside that house before Nancy ever walked through the door? That possibility completely changes how we look at this crime.
Today, I want to examine the logistics of that theory.
Not not to say that that’s what happened, but to ask whether the evidence that we know publicly could fit that scenario, because if it does, some of the biggest mysteries in this case suddenly become a little bit easier to understand.
Hello everyone, welcome back to my channel.
If you’re new here, my name is Charles Brewer.
I’ve spent 21 years in law enforcement.
And here on this channel, we analyze real criminal investigations through a law enforcement perspective.
If you enjoy calm, evidence-based discussions, I’d appreciate it if you’d just hit that like button for me and subscribe if you haven’t already and join the Brew Crew community as we continue to follow this case together.
Now, let’s get on into this because I want to talk about the medication timeline because one thing that investigators always study is is a routine.
Criminals, they they may lie.
Witnesses, they may forget, but routines are they’re remarkably dependable.
Nancy was 84 years old.
She had health concerns.
She lived a she lived a structured life.
Now, if her medication truly was never taken that evening, then something interrupted her normal routine almost immediately after she got home.
From an investigative standpoint, that matters in this case.
if she walked inside, closed the garage, set her belongings down, and was confronted maybe almost immediately, then that tells us that this wasn’t a burglar just wandering through the neighborhood looking for an easy target.
This would suggest planning, preparation, someone who either knew that she would be coming home or someone who intended to wait until she did.
Now, think about the patience that that requires four, five, possibly six hours sitting inside a stranger’s home.
Or was it even a stranger? This has been a question also.
We don’t know.
But I’ll tell you that’s not normal criminal behavior.
That’s something you know that someone committed a plan.
Someone planned this.
Someone was willing to wait.
Someone confident that Nancy was eventually coming back.
And that raises another important question because how would they know her schedule? Was was was it surveillance? Maybe previous observation.
Or did someone just simply notice a predictable routine? Maybe there was another source of information that investigators have never discussed publicly.
Those are all fair investigative questions.
They’re they’re questions that law enforcement is almost certainly asking today.
Now, let’s put ourselves into the investigative mode here because if an offender entered the house hours before Nancy returned, now we we don’t know this, but if they did, what are they doing during all that time? Maybe are they listening learning learning the uh the the layout of the house? Were they studying every sound, every light, every creaking floor? They would know exactly where to stand and exactly where to hide, exactly how long it takes for someone to move from the garage to the kitchen.
And by the time Nancy walked in, the offender would already know the house.
That would explain why everything happened so quickly here.
No panic, no searching, and no hesitation, just immediate action.
Now, from a law enforcement perspective, that’s something that detectives would absolutely have to evaluate.
Now, here’s another question that naturally follows.
If if someone spent four, five, or even six hours inside NY’s home, they would have been taking an enormous risk.
Most burglars aren’t going to sit inside a residence that long unless they have confidence that they they won’t be captured on video.
And that brings us to the home security cameras.
If the offender was comfortable remaining inside for hours, was that because they already understood how those cameras worked? Did they know which cameras were recording, which cameras weren’t how the system operated? If the answer to any of those questions is yes, then investigators, they they have to ask an important question here.
How would someone know that? Now, one possibility is that they they had been inside NY’s home before.
Maybe just as a guest, maybe a worker, maybe maybe in some other legitimate capacity.
Another possibility is that that that they had they had spent enough time conducting surveillance to understand the security system before that night.
Either scenario suggests planning, it suggests familiarity.
And from a law enforcement perspective, familiarity is something that detectives they they pay very close attention to.
Now, that doesn’t automatically mean the offender personally knew Nancy.
It does not.
Not necessarily.
People can become familiar with with a home without having a close relationship with the homeowner.
But if investigators determine that someone confidently remained inside that resident for several hours, I think one of the first questions that we’re going to be asking is whether that confidence came from prior knowledge of the of the house and and its security system.
Because criminals, they usually don’t gamble with cameras that they know nothing about.
And before we go any further, I want to hear from you today.
Do you think this was someone who entered only minutes before Nancy got home? Or could someone really have waited inside for hours? Leave your thoughts below because I read I read more comments than most of you realize.
And many of the best discussion points in these videos come directly from this community.
Now, let’s move to something that bothered me from the very beginning.
That front door.
Now, we have seen evidence of blood near the front door.
If if if Nancy exited through the front door, how how was the front door later found locked? There are several possibilities.
One, the offender used NY’s keys.
That’s entirely possible.
two, maybe a second individual remained inside long enough to secure the front door before leaving through another exit.
Remember, it was reported that the back door was propped open when NY’s family arrived.
That would immediately raise the possibility of more than one offender.
The third thing is if the home had technology capable of remotely securing access points.
Some some homes do.
Investigators would obviously evaluate that as well.
And I’m not saying that’s what happened because we we don’t know.
It’s not been reported.
But some homes have this technology.
I’m saying that those are the kinds of logistical questions that detectives work through because every locked door tells part of the story as well as a prop door.
Now, I want to talk about something else that many of you have noticed.
Several viewers have pointed out that what appears to be the foliage overlapping areas where the blood droplets were seen and discussed publicly on that front porch.
And I’m not saying that that’s conclusive evidence of anything.
Images can be misleading.
Angles matter.
Lighting matters.
Investigators, you know, they they they they have access to far more information than we do.
And I’ve seen these images as well.
But here’s what I think is worth discussing.
If the camera area was manipulated after Nancy had already been removed from the home, that would suggest someone returned to deal with the camera rather than just simply escaping immediately.
Why does this matter? because you know they knew that the camera represented evidence.
And if porch guy is indeed seen after Nancy was already removed, that would explain why his movement appeared so calm.
He’s not rushing.
He He’s not looking over his shoulder constantly.
He’s acting like someone whose primary task at that moment is dealing with the camera.
Again, that’s only one interpretation, but it is one that investigators would they they would have to examine.
Now, we come to another question.
Could one individual accomplish everything reportedly associated with this case? It it is possible.
But let’s think through the logistics here because an 84 year old woman, a residence, time inside the residence, managing evidence, leaving without attracting attention, potentially transporting a victim, potentially manipulating cameras, securing the residence afterwards.
Now, could one offender do all of this? Yes, they could.
Could two offenders make every one of those tasks easier? Absolutely.
One remains inside, one one handles the transportation, one watches outside, one does all the communicating.
Those are possibilities that must be considered.
the evidence and not assumptions will ultimately answer that question.
Now, before I wrap this up, I want to recognize something very important.
And maybe I I mention this too often in my videos.
I don’t know.
Maybe.
So, I I just know that there have been a lot of negative comments about content creators lately.
And if you think about it, if it weren’t for those faithful few who have been out there every day bringing attention to this case, bringing attention to Nancy Guthrie, it would really sound like crickets around this case.
Really, there are numerous creators, local residents, community members, and and people who are literally putting boots on the ground around Tucson, and they continue keeping NY’s face in front of the public.
They continue reminding people about Porch Guy.
They continue asking questions, and and that’s not competition.
That’s that’s community.
Every responsible communicator who keeps this case visible increases the chances that someone recognizes something that they’ve overlooked until now.
Just one phone call, one memory, one person recognizes a face.
And sometimes that’s all it takes.
So what I say to each of you out there with a camera and a voice, keep pounding the pavement.
keep NY’s name in front of the public because your content may be what breaks this case wide open.
Now, as we move closer to the sixmon mark, remember this investigators, they they know far more than we do.
They’re working with evidence that the public has never seen.
We’re looking through a keyhole.
They’re inside the room.
So today’s discussion isn’t about proving a theory.
It’s about asking whether the publicly known facts fit one possible sequence of event.
That’s that’s exactly what investigators do.
They test possibilities.
Then they eliminate the ones that evidence doesn’t support.
Eventually one remains.
and listen to the individual out there or individuals responsible for Nancy Guthri’s disappearance.
Every day that passes, technology gets better.
DNA science gets stronger.
Digital evidence becomes easier to recover.
Witnesses remember things that they once was afraid to say.
Someone knows who you are.
Someone recognizes your movements.
Someone recognizes the person on that porch.
And you may think that time is helping you.
But from my experience, time is usually helping investigators.
And if you’re watching today, do the right thing.
Come forward.
Bring Nancy home.
And to NY’s family, we’re continuing to pray for answers.
And to everyone working this investigation, thank you for staying with it.
And to the community here on my channel, keep thinking and observing.
Keep keep discussing respectfully.
Sometimes one overlooked detail changes everything.
Now, if you’ve enjoyed this analysis today, don’t forget to hit the like button, subscribe if you haven’t already, and share this video out with someone who’s following the Nancy Guthrie case.
And until this case is resolved and and Nancy is finally returned home to her family and the person responsible is held accountable for the pain that they’ve caused.
I’ll see you all in the next video.
