Nancy Guthrie Kidnapping Case: Perjury Allegations Cloud Investigation After 100 Days Without Breakthrough

Arizona's Nancy Guthrie kidnapping case took another turn on Wednesday in Tucson, after the Pima County Board of Supervisors voted to keep Sheriff Chris Nanos in office while referring perjury allegations against him to the state attorney general.

The decision adds fresh turmoil to an investigation that has now stretched beyond 100 days without a public breakthrough. Nancy Guthrie, 84, was reportedly abducted from her home by a masked intruder in a case that drew national attention because she is the mother of Today anchor Savannah Guthrie. Despite heavy coverage and growing public concern, investigators have not named a suspect or announced any major development.

Perjury Claims Raise Pressure

The board stopped short of removing Nanos from office, but unanimously agreed to send a packet of alleged false statements to Arizona's attorney general for review. According to NewsNation, the referral centres on claims that the sheriff made misleading statements under oath.

Supervisor Dr Matt Heinz said the board had reached the limit of its legal powers. 'We have limited powers,' he said, arguing that any decision on possible criminal charges now rests with the state.

The allegations are unusually specific. In one example cited in reports, Nanos is accused of falsely claiming in a deposition that he had never been suspended during his law enforcement career. Records from his time at the El Paso Police Department reportedly suggest otherwise, with multiple suspensions noted in his personnel history.

Board members have suggested the issue did not end there. They say Nanos gave further misleading answers when questioned later about that history and about the accuracy of his earlier testimony.

No charges have been filed, and none of the claims has been tested in court. For now, the allegations remain just that, pending any decision by the attorney general on whether to investigate further.

FBI Tensions Add To Scrutiny

The political pressure on Nanos had already been building before this week's meeting. Earlier this month, NewsNation reported that FBI Director Kash Patel blamed the sheriff for hindering the early stages of the Nancy Guthrie investigation by keeping federal agents 'out of the loop' as critical leads emerged.

That criticism suggested a deeper problem than simple delay. It raised the prospect that friction between agencies may have damaged the search during its most important early phase, feeding fears that institutional rivalry may have slowed momentum in the case.

Nanos has denied excluding the FBI. He has said his office worked 'alongside federal agents' from the start and insists information was shared appropriately throughout the investigation. His allies argue that he is being made the face of a difficult and still unsolved case.

Even so, there are signs of strain closer to home. Pima County Assessor Suzanne Droubie told The Arizona Republic that Nanos sharply reprimanded her after she passed property related information to FBI agents in response to a formal request. She said the material proved useful in generating new leads.

Speaking on NewsNation's Elizabeth Vargas Reports, Heinz described that episode in blunt terms. He said Droubie complied with the FBI request, then phoned the sheriff as a courtesy to explain what she had shared. According to Heinz, that was when Nanos 'kind of bit her head off', appearing more frustrated by the extra work than encouraged by a possible lead.

Investigation Still Stalled

Taken together, the allegations point to a sheriff's office under growing political and public pressure. For residents of Pima County, and for those watching the case closely, the mix of disputed testimony, inter agency tension and official infighting offers little reassurance while the central question remains unanswered.

More than 100 days after Nancy Guthrie's reported abduction, there is still no clear public indication of where she is or who may be responsible. The attorney general's office has not yet set out how or when it will respond to the referral, leaving Nanos in charge of the investigation under an intensifying cloud of scrutiny.