Why a Masked Man's 'Bite Flashlight' is the FBI's Best Shot at Finding Nancy Guthrie

The FBI's search for Nancy Guthrie may rest on one small object seen in grainy doorbell footage. CeCe Moore, the genetic genealogist who discussed the case on NewsNation, said a flashlight held in a masked man's mouth could be the most likely remaining source of the suspect's DNA after Guthrie vanished from her Tucson area home on 1 February.

Guthrie, the mother of Today host Savannah Guthrie, disappeared more than two months ago, and authorities have treated the case as a suspected abduction. Doorbell video from that night remains one of the few pieces of evidence known publicly, showing a masked man outside the property using a flashlight in his mouth.

Why The Nancy Guthrie 'Bite Flashlight' Matters To Investigators

In her NewsNation interview, Moore stressed that no one outside law enforcement knows exactly what has already been tested. She suggested that crime scene investigators may already have taken 'dozens or hundreds of swabs' from Guthrie's home and could still be working through them.

'It's hard to know what they have already collected,' she said. 'It's so hard for a crime scene investigator to know exactly what to swab, since most DNA is invisible to the eye, right? So sometimes, it just is a trained intuition that causes them to swab the correct thing.'

If that intuition has not yet produced a clear DNA profile from the suspected abductor, Moore thinks investigators should return with a much more specific focus. She argues they should concentrate on the 'bite flashlight' visible in the footage, because the part held in the man's mouth is likely to be covered in his saliva and could give them the strongest DNA sample yet.

'DNA is hardy. So it's certainly possible there is still some DNA there, and in particular, I really do think that saliva is the most likely, and that is because of what appeared to be that bite flashlight in his mouth,' she said.

Moore added that someone who contacted her and had used a similar type of flashlight agreed it would produce 'a lot of saliva' and that it would be 'very difficult not to leave some of that behind'. It is an unglamorous detail, but in a case with so few visible leads, the idea of dried saliva on a handheld device begins to matter a great deal.

Inside The Nancy Guthrie DNA Hunt

Moore repeatedly expressed confidence in the work of the crime scene team already assigned to the Guthrie investigation. The difficulty, she argued, is less about competence and more about the sheer complexity of a lived‑in house where every surface can be covered in trace material.

'They may not have swabbed exactly the right thing to find that individual's DNA — through no fault of their own — just because it's hard to know, in a house like that, where would you even start other than the obvious places?' she said.

Her suggestion that investigators could return to the home is not a criticism of what has been done so far, but rather a recognition that DNA work often involves revisiting scenes once initial tests fail to deliver a clear answer. She framed the strategy bluntly as a long shot.

'Now, of course, this is a little bit of a Hail Mary,' Moore said, 'but I think everything in this case right now, based on at least what we know, appears to be that at this point.'

According to Moore, the decision to allow the Guthrie family back into Nancy's home should not, in itself, prevent further forensic work. Relatives' DNA, she said, can be identified and ruled out in the lab if fresh swabs are taken later.

The bigger risk, in her assessment, lies in fragile traces being physically disturbed. She cited examples such as saliva on the ground or a rootless hair that might once have been enough to identify a suspect.

'It could have been tracked back out, could end up on the bottom of someone's shoe,' she noted. 'But if there is something that is still on a surface, then I think it's still possible that they could get that person's DNA if they haven't done that already.'

That is why the flashlight remains central to the Nancy Guthrie case. Unlike a stray hair or an invisible trace on the floor, it offers a clear point of contact that investigators can test with purpose. If it was recovered and properly preserved, it may hold the DNA detectives need. If it was missed, one of the clearest opportunities in this investigation may already have slipped away.

The FBI and local Arizona authorities have not publicly detailed what was seized, swabbed or sent for testing, and there has been no confirmation of where the forensic work stands. That leaves Moore's analysis necessarily limited by what is not yet known. But if the flashlight was recovered and preserved, it may be the one object in this case capable of turning a blurred figure on a doorbell camera into an identifiable suspect.