The Pima County Sheriff’s Department says investigators are still working with laboratories to examine DNA evidence in the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, an 84-year-old woman who vanished from her Tucson-area home at the beginning of February. In a statement reported on Friday, October 30, Sheriff Chris Nanos said investigators had visited scientists in Florida earlier in the month to discuss what additional work might help. He did not announce an identified suspect, a DNA match, an arrest or a date when testing might be complete.

Why It Matters

Nearly nine months after Nancy disappeared, her family is still waiting for answers. It is important that the public understands what this announcement does, and does not, mean. Police continuing to test evidence can signal ongoing investigative activity. It does not mean that a laboratory has identified the person who took Nancy or that any specific theory has been proved. Nancy is a mother and grandmother with a family, not simply an evidence profile or the parent of a television personality.

Go Deeper | What Investigators Have Said

The Florida meeting

According to the sheriff’s October 30 statement reported by Parade and later outlets, members of the Nancy Guthrie Task Force traveled to Florida in October to consult with laboratory scientists. The purpose was to explore additional ways of working with evidence already under examination. Nanos described discussing possible approaches with specialists and continuing to coordinate with investigative partners.

His statement did not identify the particular sample discussed during the meeting, describe a newly completed test, name the laboratories involved in this specific consultation or say whether any idea had already produced a usable profile. Those missing details matter. A meeting about how to advance laboratory work is different from a positive forensic result.

Why older evidence can require more testing

In many criminal investigations, biological traces may be incomplete, mixed with other people’s material or otherwise difficult to interpret. Specialists may discuss ways to improve a profile or determine whether more testing is possible. Those are general forensic challenges; without the underlying laboratory reports, we cannot say which one explains the current work in Nancy’s case.

Earlier reporting described the FBI and private laboratory partners working on biological evidence associated with the investigation. The latest announcement should be read as a continuation of that process, not confirmation that the FBI has obtained a match or that genetic genealogy has identified anyone.

Who Nancy is

Nancy was last seen by her family on the evening of January 31, 2026, and was reported missing February 1. Her daughter, Savannah Guthrie, is known to television audiences, but the central human story is Nancy’s disappearance and the unanswered questions facing the people who love her. Her family has repeatedly asked the public for help.

How the investigation began

Authorities have treated the disappearance as a suspected abduction. Investigators previously released security footage showing a masked individual outside Nancy’s home. The existence of footage does not establish the identity of that person, and no suspect has been publicly named in the sheriff’s October 30 update.

The investigation has also involved purported ransom communications. In September, authorities investigated a new possible ransom message and determined the particular text was not credible. That determination should not be confused with the newly discussed DNA work, and neither item establishes where Nancy is.

What the October 30 statement did not say

It did not announce that Nancy had been found. It did not announce that investigators had arrested anyone. It did not say that a DNA comparison implicated a family member, neighbor or any publicly speculated person. It offered no timetable for laboratory results. Claims circulating online about a match or named suspect require independent confirmation from an authoritative source before they belong in factual reporting.

The public can still provide information

The sheriff continued to request tips, emphasizing that even a detail someone considers minor could be useful. People with information are asked to contact 88-CRIME or 1-800-CALL-FBI. Those contact points come from the sheriff’s statement as reproduced in reporting, not an independent tip line maintained by Faces in the Footnotes.

What Happens Next

The next meaningful developments to watch are a documented laboratory result, an official change in the investigation’s status, a publicly identified suspect or a verified police briefing. We will distinguish such events from commentary about what investigators might eventually find. Follow Nancy’s main case page and the dated timeline for the developing record.