Annie Asked for a Loan?
Nancy Said NO – 2 Weeks Later, She Was Gone..
A mother and a daughter had a conversation about money.
The mother said no, and then that mother disappeared from her own home in the middle of the night.
It has not been confirmed by law enforcement.
It has not been denied either.
Annie Guthrie or other didn’t deny this, but everything around it, what was documented before that conversation and what happened after it, that part is on the record, and that part is what nobody is talking about clearly.
Tonight, we follow the money all the way through, and by the end of this video, you will see exactly who the evidence is pointing toward without me having to say a single name.
If that is the kind of coverage you have been looking for, subscribe to Brian Updates right now, hit the bell, because what comes next took days to piece together from court documents, FBI releases, and verified reporting from CBS, NBC, Fox News, CNN, and The New York Times.
Let us start with the night everything changed, January 31st, 2026.
At 5:32 in the evening, Nancy Guthrie opened an app on her phone and requested an Uber.
The car arrived, she got in, and it drove her 4 miles to the home of her daughter Annie Guthrie and Annie’s husband Tommaso Cheyney.
Dinner with family, a normal evening, the kind of evening an 84-year-old mother is supposed to have with her children.
That Uber ride is fully documented, timestamped.
The driver cooperated with the FBI.
Every second of that trip to Annie’s house is on the record.
The trip home is not.
Nancy did not take an Uber back.
Tommaso Cheyney drove her.
He decided when they left, he chose the route.
He pulled up to her home in the Catalina foothills of Tucson, Arizona, and according to his account, he walked her to the door and watched her go inside.
At 9:50 p.m.
, the garage door closed, confirmed by smart home system data.
That is the last verified moment Nancy Guthrie was safe inside her own home, and the only person who can describe what happened at that front door between the car stopping and the garage closing is Tomaso Cheoni.
No camera recorded the arrival, no neighbor witnessed it, no app generated a log.
His account of those final minutes stands completely alone.
Now, here is where I need you to hold two thoughts in your mind at the same time because both of them are true.
The first thought, there is nothing inherently suspicious about a son-in-law driving his elderly mother-in-law home after dinner.
Millions of families do this every week across America.
It is an act of kindness.
It is normal.
The second thought, in any criminal investigation where a person disappears, the last known individual to be with that person receives the most scrutiny.
That is not accusation, that is procedure.
That is how every detective in every jurisdiction in this country has operated for decades.
Both of those things are true at the same time.
And what happened in the hours after that garage door closed is what turned a family dinner into a federal investigation.
From 9:50 in the evening on January 31st to 12:03 in the afternoon on February 1st, a total of 14 hours and 13 minutes passed.
During that entire window, there is no confirmed phone call from Annie or Tomaso to Nancy.
No text message, no drive-by to check on her, no contact of any kind from the two people who had just spent an evening with her and who lived 4 miles away.
Nancy was 84 years old.
She had a pacemaker.
She needed daily medication that the Pima County Sheriff’s Department later said could be fatal to miss.
And every single night she removed her hearing aids before bed, which meant once those aids came out, she could not hear anything happening around her.
The people who drove her home knew all of this.
Now, I want to be fair here because fairness matters, especially in a case where the internet has already destroyed lives with speculation.
There are families where a good night call is not part of the routine.
There are families where a parent comes home from dinner and nobody checks in until the next day.
That happens.
It is not automatically suspicious, but here is the other side.
In families where an 84-year-old parent lives alone, takes critical medication, and depends on a pacemaker, a 3-second text saying “Home safe” is not unusual.
It is common.
It costs nothing.
And on this particular night, from this particular family, it did not happen.
That 14-hour gap created something very specific.
It created a clean operational window.
No interruption.
No unexpected visit.
No phone call that might have been answered by someone other than Nancy or not answered at all, triggering concern earlier.
The only reason anyone discovered Nancy was missing is because she had a standing Sunday morning routine that had nothing to do with her family.
Every Sunday, dating back to the COVID pandemic, Nancy and a small group of close friends gathered at one of their homes to watch a New York-based service via live stream.
The service came from Savannah Guthrie’s church in New York.
On the morning of February 1st, Nancy did not show up at her friend’s house.
That friend called Annie.
Annie could not reach her mother.
Annie went to the house, and at 12:03 p.m., the 911 call was made.
But between Annie arriving at the house and that 911 call, there is a gap, and that gap matters.
According to available reporting, the family arrived at Nancy’s home at approximately 11:56 in the morning.
The 911 call was placed at 12:03.
That is 7 minutes.
7 minutes between walking up to the home of a missing 84-year-old woman and picking up a phone to call for help.
Now, if there was blood visible on the front porch, and we know there was because the Pima County Sheriff later confirmed blood drops on the stone steps outside Nancy’s front door, then the question of what happened in those 7 minutes is significant.
Were they searching the house?
Were they calling each other?
Were they trying to reach Nancy on her phone?
Were they processing what they were seeing?
There are completely understandable explanations for a 7-minute delay.
Walking through a house looking for your mother, checking rooms, calling out her name, trying her cell phone.
These are things any family member would do before dialing 911.
But, there is a reason I am telling you about this gap because the recording of that 911 call, >> [music] >> the actual audio of what Annie said to the dispatcher, has never been released.
And a retired detective has a theory about why.
In Arizona, 911 recordings are public records.
Reporters can request them.
In the vast majority of high-profile missing person cases across this country, the 911 recording becomes public within days, sometimes within hours.
As of today, more than 100 days into the investigation into the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, nobody outside of law enforcement has heard what Annie Guthrie said when she called to report her mother was gone.
Retired detective Bob Gilliam, appearing on the YouTube program The Interview Room, addressed this directly.
He said there is almost certainly investigative information on that recording that law enforcement does not want the public to hear yet, his exact words.
I do not think we are going to hear the 911 calls for a while, and there could be a myriad of reasons for that.
There is probably some investigative information in there that the detectives do not want out to the public, so do not hold your breath on it.
I think it is going to be quite a while before we hear anything like that.
And then Gilliam said something else.
He suggested the recording may not be released until a potential trial date approaches.
A trial, that word carries weight.
A retired detective with decades of experience does not use the word trial casually.
A trial means charges.
A trial means an arrest.
A trial means that someone, somewhere in this investigation, is moving toward a courtroom.
And the 911 call is being preserved as evidence for that proceeding.
Arizona law allows the withholding of 911 calls when government interests, specifically an active investigation, justify keeping them sealed.
The Pima County Sheriff’s Department has used that exception.
And they’ve not indicated when or if the recording will be made public.
Think about what might be on that recording.
The obvious elements, Annie’s voice, the time of the call, the words she chose, but also the less obvious elements.
How much detail did she volunteer before the dispatcher asked?
Did she describe what she found inside the house?
Did she mention the blood?
Were there other voices in the background?
What was the emotional register of the person speaking?
All of it is locked away.
And an experienced detective says the reason is preparation for trial.
That is where the 911 call stands, sealed, protected, and according to at least one retired investigator, pointing towards something the public has not been told yet.
Now, let me take you to the claim that set the internet on fire and put the word money at the center of this case for the first time.
In early May 2026, a man named Jonathan Lee Riches posted a claim on X, formerly Twitter.
He describes himself as an independent investigator who had been covering the Guthrie case.
His claim was specific.
He wrote that Annie Guthrie asked Nancy for a loan before she disappeared.
And in a follow-up post, he wrote that Nancy said no.
His exact words, “Nancy Guthrie told them no.
She will not be giving them money.
So I am told.”
Riches said he received this information from a source.
He did not name the source.
He did not provide documentation.
No established news organization has independently verified the claim.
No law enforcement agency has confirmed it.
And critically, no member of the Guthrie family has publicly addressed it.
Not to confirm and not to deny.
Now, here is something else Jonathan Lee Riches said that most channels covering this case have completely left out.
In a separate post, Riches wrote, “I do not think the Guthrie family has anything to do with it either.”
Read that again.
The same person who introduced the loan refusal claim also said he does not believe the family is involved.
That is an important piece of context that the loudest voices online have deliberately ignored because it does not fit the narrative they are selling.
So, where does that leave us?
It leaves us with an unverified claim from an online commentator who himself does not believe it.
Points to family involvement.
That is the honest reality of this piece of information.
But here is why it still matters.
Even if the loan claim itself is unverified, the financial questions surrounding Annie and Tomaso had been accumulating long before Riches posted anything.
And those questions have built on documented public record facts, not tweets.
Let me walk through them.
Nancy Guthrie’s home in the Catalina Foothills is valued at approximately $1 million.
That is public record.
It sits in one of the most desirable neighborhoods in the Tucson area.
Nancy had been living there for decades.
Annie and Tomaso’s home is approximately 4 miles away.
Its estimated value is around $650,000.
That is a gap of roughly $350,000 between the home of the mother and the home of the daughter who lived closest to her.
On its own, that gap means nothing.
Parents often have more valuable homes than their adult children.
That is completely normal across America.
But when you are trying to understand why someone would target Nancy specifically, why this woman, why this house, why this level of planning in the middle of the night, the value of what she owned becomes a relevant data point because the most common motive in
Cases where an elderly person is harmed by someone within their own circle is not rage.
It is not revenge.
It is access.
Access to assets that become available when the owner is no longer present.
Then there is the vehicle.
Annie and Tomaso’s blue Honda CRV was seized by law enforcement in early February 2026.
That vehicle was the last car Nancy Guthrie rode in before she disappeared.
Tomaso drove it.
Nancy sat in it.
And when investigators impounded it, they held on to it for an extended period.
On February 27th, 2026, nearly a month later, CBS 5 reporter Briana Whitney reported that the Pima County Sheriff’s Department was still holding the vehicle.
Their statement to her was simple.
All we can say right now, the vehicle is still part of the investigation.
By March 11th, over 5 weeks after it was seized, the vehicle had still not been returned.
The Sheriff’s Department told Parade Magazine that it was in the process of being returned, but had not been yet.
Now, retired FBI agent Jennifer Coffindaffer addressed this publicly.
She said she wanted to debunk the idea that the car being held means police suspect Annie Addutomasso.
She pointed out that investigators were also holding Nancy’s own car and possibly a Range Rover connected to the case.
Her explanation was that all vehicles were being processed forensically and that the family likely consented to the search, which is actually a point in their favor because consent searches typically mean law enforcement did not have probable cause to get a warrant.
That is a fair and important counterpoint and I want you to hear it, but it is also true that holding a vehicle for more than 5 weeks of forensic examination is not routine.
It suggests investigators were looking for something specific.
Whether they found it has never been disclosed.
Now, let me address the vulnerability question because this is where the financial lens takes on a different dimension entirely.
Nancy Guthrie was 84 years old.
She lived alone in a million-dollar home and on the night she was taken, here is what was not protecting her.
No active security camera recording.
Her Nest doorbell camera was on the property, but the footage from the night of the abduction had to be forensically recovered by the FBI working with Google.
The system was not generating reliable recordings on its own.
No alarm system.
No medical alert pendant around her neck or on her wrist.
No overnight caretaker, no companion animal.
According to some reports, a dog that had previously been at the home had died and was never replaced.
And every single night, Nancy removed her hearing aids before bed.
Once those aids came out, she was completely deaf to anything happening inside or outside her home.
Here is what makes this so difficult to process.
Every single one of those missing protections is inexpensive to put in place.
A camera subscription runs roughly $15 a month.
A medical alert pendant costs less than a dollar a day.
An overnight home health aid in the Tucson area is available for a few hundred dollars a week.
A phone call and a credit card.
That is the entire barrier between an 84-year-old woman being protected and being completely exposed.
The Guthrie family had the resources.
Savannah Guthrie is one of the highest-paid broadcast journalists in the country.
The combined income across three adult siblings is more than sufficient to cover every single one of those safeguards many times over without any meaningful financial impact.
And none of it was done.
I want to be careful here.
There are families where elderly parents insist on independence.
There are mothers and fathers who refuse to have cameras installed, who do not want to caretaker in their home, who tell their children they are fine.
That happens every day in this country, and it is not the children’s fault.
But the question still exists, and it exists specifically because of the financial context.
If Annie was in a position where she needed to ask her 84-year-old mother for money, then the question of why basic protections were never put in place for Nancy takes on a different weight.
It is no longer simply an oversight.
It becomes a situation that someone under financial pressure may not have prioritized.
Or, and this is the harder version of the question, the version that I am presenting as a question and not as a conclusion, it becomes something that was permitted to continue because a vulnerable, unmonitored, unprotected mother in a million-dollar home is easier to reach than one surrounded by cameras, alarms, and a caretaker in the next room.
That question is going to sit in this case for a long time, no matter what the answer turns out to be.
Now, let me tell you about something that happened in May 2026 that most channels have not covered yet, and this one is verified.
Former FBI agent Jennifer Coffindaffer, who has been closely following this case and who has contributed analysis to NewsNation, posted a statement on X on May 14th, 2026.
She said she personally checked the BASIS Oro Valley charter school website, the school where Tomas Cheri has been employed as a sixth-grade biology teacher, and his name was no longer listed on the faculty page.
Her exact words, “Some have reported that Annie and Tomas have not been seen.
I personally checked the BASIS Oro Valley school where Tomas teaches sixth-grade biology.
I do not see his name listed as a teacher.”
Now, Coffindaffer was careful.
She said there could be several explanations.
He might have taken a leave of absence.
The school might have removed his listing because of the intense public attention.
There might be administrative reasons entirely unrelated to the investigation.
She did not accuse him of anything, but she also pointed out what should be obvious.
A sixth-grade biology teacher whose name is removed from the school website, whose family has reportedly not been seen in public for over a week, whose vehicle has been absent from the home, all of that is consistent with a family whose life has been destroyed by public accusation, regardless of whether those accusations have any basis in reality.
Coffin Nuffer raised the possibility of defamation lawsuits under Arizona law if Annie and Tommaso are proven to be innocent.
She noted the damage to Tommaso’s career, to their child, and to their ability to live a normal life.
School officials have not commented publicly on Tommaso’s employment status.
Neighbors have reportedly told amateur investigators that Annie and Tommaso have not been seen at their home, but those claims are unconfirmed by law enforcement.
This is the reality of the internet true crime machine.
Even if Annie and Tommaso are completely innocent, and as of today law enforcement has officially cleared them, their lives have been shredded.
A teacher’s name removed from his school, a family potentially unable to live in their own home, a child caught in the crossfire of accusations made by people who have never met them and who have zero access to the actual evidence.
And the people making those accusations are collecting ad revenue while they do it.
That is not justice.
That is entertainment disguised as investigation.
But while the internet was busy ruining lives, something was happening inside the actual investigation that has received far less attention.
And it involves the man running it.
Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos has been under fire for months, and the criticism is not just coming from armchair detectives on YouTube.
It is coming from inside his own county government.
Dr.
Matthew Heinz, the vice chair of the Pima County Board of Supervisors, went on NewsNation and made an accusation that landed like a bomb.
He said that Nanos has been holding a grudge against the FBI dating back to a 2015 to 2016 investigation into his department over the possible misuse of approximately $500,000 [music] in RICO funds.
That investigation ultimately led to the indictment of Nanos’ chief deputy and cost Nanos a sheriff’s race.
Heinz’s exact words, “He is a person who holds a grudge and is still angry at the FBI for appropriately investigating his office.
He has held a grudge against the FBI and refused to fully work with them going forward.”
And I think we see examples of the results of that with regard to the most recent high-profile investigation.
When asked directly whether he believed Nanos’ alleged grudge may have jeopardized elements of the Nancy Guthrie investigation, Heinz responded that it was very possible.
A sitting county official on national television saying the sheriff running this case may have allowed a personal vendetta against the FBI to interfere with the search for an abducted 84-year-old woman.
And then on May 5th, 2026, FBI Director Kash Patel himself stated publicly that the Pima County Sheriff’s Department did not work well with the FBI during the early days of the investigation.
The FBI director confirming what Heinz had accused, Sheriff Nanos pushed back.
His department issued a statement saying they have worked with the FBI since the beginning, but the damage was done.
And the question that every person watching this video should be asking is this, “How many hours were lost?
How much evidence was compromised?
How many leads went cold because two agencies were not communicating the way they should have been during the most critical window of this investigation, the first 48 hours.
Nobody has answered that question, and the family of Nancy Guthrie deserves an answer.
As of May 2026, Sheriff Nanos confirmed that the FBI now leads all communication with the Guthrie family, including Savannah.
He is no longer in direct contact with them.
That is a significant shift, and it tells you something about where the balance of power in this investigation has moved.
Now, there is one more voice I want you to hear because it carries a kind of authority that no YouTube channel and no internet commenter can match.
Ed Smart is the father of Elizabeth Smart.
His daughter was kidnapped from her Salt Lake City home in 2002 and held captive for 9 months before being found alive.
Ed Smart knows what it feels like to have your child taken.
He knows what these investigations look like from the inside.
He knows what the public attention does to a family.
In April 2026, Smart sat down with NewsNation’s Jesse Weber.
He was asked about the Guthrie case, and he chose his words with visible care.
He said, “I think that it is really important to one, not go into conspiracy theories.
I do not think there is much value in that.
Of course, the Guthries have been looked at.”
And then he said this, “The family has supposedly been cleared.
Supposedly.”
That is the word Ed Smart used.
Not definitely, not conclusively, supposedly.
It is the word you use when you are respecting an official position while leaving the door deliberately open to the possibility that the official position is not the final word.
Ed Smart was not accusing anyone.
He was being precise, and precision in a case like this says more than certainty ever could.
He went on to say that the public and the media need to keep Nancy’s face out there.
That new information needs to keep coming.
That sometimes law enforcement does not disclose what they have, and that can be problematic.
Those are the words of a man who has lived through this nightmare, and who understands that public attention is sometimes the only thing keeping a case alive.
So, let me bring this to where the investigation actually stands right now.
Because underneath all the noise, the tweets, the accusations, the YouTube live streams from Nancy’s front yard, there is real forensic work happening in real laboratories with real scientists.
The DNA recovered from the blood evidence on Nancy’s front porch contains both her blood and an unknown individual’s profile.
That unknown DNA was run through CODIS, the national DNA database used by every law enforcement agency in the country.
It came back with no match.
No match means the person who left biological material at [music] that scene has never been in the criminal justice system.
No prior arrests, no prior convictions, no history of violence that put them in any database anywhere.
[music] Think about what that eliminates.
It eliminates career criminals.
It eliminates repeat offenders.
It eliminates anyone with a prior record.
The DNA profile belongs to someone living what appears from the outside to be a completely ordinary life.
A hair sample recovered from inside Nancy’s home was sent first to a private lab in Florida, then to the FBI lab at Quantico, Virginia.
As of May 2026, that evidence is believed to be undergoing genetic genealogy analysis, the same technology that identified the Golden State Killer after more than 40 years.
The technology that convicted Rex Heuermann, the Long Island serial killer, genetic genealogy works by comparing crime scene DNA against commercial ancestry databases and building a family tree backward until it identifies a living person.
It is slow, it is painstaking, [music] but it has never permanently failed when applied to quality biological evidence.
If that hair sample contains a root, which determines whether full genomic profiling is possible, then whoever left it inside Nancy’s home is already in a database they do not know about, and the clock is ticking on their anonymity.
Sheriff Nanos, speaking in May 2026, said directly that investigators believe they are getting closer to identifying the unknown DNA contributor.
He said an arrest will be made at some point, and he described the process that would follow a DNA match.
Once they have a name, they go backward.
What does this person drive?
Were vehicles matching that description seen in the area?
Who do they know?
Where were they that night?
The DNA does not care about YouTube theories.
It does not care about tweets.
[music] It does not care about family trees drawn on whiteboards by people who have never processed a crime scene.
>> [music] >> It will either match a name or it will not.
And when it does, every other piece of evidence in this case will be reconstructed around that single identification.
Let me stack what is verified and what is not, because you deserve to see it clearly without spin.
What is verified?
Nancy Guthrie had dinner at Annie and Tomasso’s home on January 31st.
Tomasso drove her home.
The garage door closed at 9:50 p.m.
At 1:47 a.m., her doorbell camera was disabled by a masked individual.
At 2:28 a.m.
, her pacemaker disconnected from her phone.
Blood matching Nancy’s DNA was found on her front porch.
Unknown DNA was also found at the scene.
No CODIS match exists.
The 911 call was made at 12:03 p.m.
On February 1st and remains sealed.
Annie and Tomaso’s car was seized and held for over 5 weeks.
The family was officially cleared by Sheriff Nanos in February.
Tomaso’s name is no longer listed basis Oro Valley School website.
Dr.
Matthew Heinz accused Sheriff Nanos of holding a grudge against the FBI.
FBI Director Cash Patel confirmed the Pima County Sheriff’s Department did not work well with the FBI initially.
Ed Smart used the word supposedly when describing the family being cleared.
A combined reward of $1.2 million remains available.
What is not verified?
The loan refusal claim.
It comes from a single post by Jonathan Lee Riches on X.
No independent confirmation exists.
Riches himself said he does not believe the family is involved.
The claim that Annie and Tomaso have not been seen at their home comes from unverified neighbor reports relayed by amateur investigators.
The 7-minute gap between arrival at the house and the 911 call has not been officially confirmed or addressed by law enforcement.
Those are the facts separated from the theories and the distance between them matters.
I want to end this with something that sits underneath all the evidence and all the speculation and all the questions about money and motives and sealed recordings.
Nancy Guthrie is 84 years old.
She has a pacemaker.
She needs medication every single day to survive.
She has been missing for more than 100 days.
Wherever she is right now, if she is still alive, she has spent more than 3 months without the medication that keeps her heart functioning.
Without the people who love her.
Without the safety of her own bed in her own home in a quiet neighborhood where she lived for decades.
Her daughter Savannah went back on national television and held herself together with a grace that most of us cannot imagine.
NBC built an internal protocol for Savannah specifically for this case.
If breaking news about Nancy hits during a live broadcast, Savannah is removed from the set immediately.
A different anchor delivers the story.
The information is given to Savannah privately off camera.
Networks do not build those kinds of procedures for cases they believe are going cold.
They build them for cases where they expect a moment, an arrest, [music] a discovery, an identification, something that will hit in real time.
The existence of that protocol is itself preparation.
And preparation signals expectation.
Someone took Nancy Guthrie from her home.
Someone who knew where she lived.
Someone who knew her routine.
Someone who knew about her cameras and came prepared to defeat them.
Someone who brought a backpack sold only at Walmart and a $10 holster from the same store.
Someone who left blood on the porch that was not theirs.
Someone who left a hair inside the house.
Someone who made mistakes that the FBI’s forensic laboratories do not forget and do not stop working on.
Whether that someone is connected to a conversation about money between a mother and her daughter or whether that conversation never happened at all is something that DNA and sealed evidence and the patience of federal investigators will eventually determine.
What I know for certain is this.
Nancy Guthrie fought back.
The blood on that porch tells trained investigators that she did not go quietly.
An 84-year-old woman with a pacemaker and a heart condition stood on her own front steps and resisted whoever came for her.
That tells you everything you need to know about who Nancy Guthrie is.
And that is why this case is not over until she is found.
If you have any information about the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, call 1-800-CALL-FBI.
You can also contact the Pima County Sheriff’s Department at 520-351-4900.
The reward is 1.2 million dollars.
It is real and someone out there knows something they have not said yet.
Call.
If this breakdown gave you a clearer picture of where this investigation actually stands, share it with someone who has been following this case.
Subscribe to Brian Updates.
We do not guess.
We do not accuse.
We follow the evidence and we tell you exactly where each piece comes from.
That is what Nancy Guthrie deserves.
That is what her family deserves.
And that is what you deserve.
Stay with us.
This case is moving.
