The Pima County Sheriff's Department posted a social media update late Thursday that read, "Update: Nancy has been located", and set off a wave of public anger from people who assumed the post referred to Nancy Guthrie, the 84-year-old mother of "Today" show host Savannah Guthrie who has been missing for 75 days.
It did not. The post referred to Nancy Radakovich, an 82-year-old woman who, as the New York Post reported, bears a striking resemblance to Guthrie. The image accompanying the post had a large "LOCATED" stamp across Radakovich's picture, and used only a first name in the headline text.
For a department already under intense scrutiny over its handling of the Guthrie disappearance, the timing and wording were, at best, reckless. At worst, they suggest an agency that either does not understand the gravity of the case dominating its jurisdiction, or does not care.
Nancy Guthrie vanished on Jan. 31. In the 75 days since, the Pima County Sheriff's Department had not shared any official statement on her case since March 24. That earlier post warned the public not to fall victim to "fundraising scams" falsely claiming to raise money for Guthrie's family, clarifying that no legitimate campaigns were linked to her.
Then came Thursday. The department broke its weeks-long silence with two posts. The first addressed reports that some DNA evidence had been sent to an FBI lab for advanced analysis. The department posted on X:
"PCSD has worked with the FBI since the beginning of the Guthrie investigation. This is not new information."
The same post added that a private lab in Florida "continues to share information with the FBI lab & other partner labs across the country" and that "DNA analysis remains ongoing." NewsNation's Brian Entin reported that the evidence includes hairs found in Guthrie's home.
Hours later, the department's social media team dropped the second post, the one that simply said "Update: Nancy has been located." No last name. No context to distinguish the subject from the most prominent missing person in the department's caseload. Readers did the math and reached the obvious, and wrong, conclusion.
X users did not hold back. One commenter, posting under the handle RoJoe1968, captured the frustration plainly:
"Of all the posts you've made about a missing person being located (Mr/Mrs last name, or first name/last name ), you chose THIS ONE to use the first name only??"
Another user, TrueCrimeKeith, was blunter: "I swear to God this Twitter account is run by Mr. Magoo." The criticism reflected a broader pattern of public exasperation with the department's communication, and its conduct, throughout the Guthrie investigation.
The department did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the post.
The social media blunder lands on top of a pile of decisions by Sheriff Chris Nanos that have drawn sustained criticism. Nanos ordered the crime scene at Guthrie's home released just days after she went missing, a move that stunned observers following the case and raised questions about whether evidence was preserved.
Earlier in April, Nanos sat for an interview in which he defended his handling of the investigation. The details of that defense were not fully reported, but the interview itself signaled that the sheriff recognized the political pressure building around him. That pressure has only grown as the case has dragged on with no arrest and no resolution. A recall effort targeting Nanos has gained traction among Pima County residents who believe the department's failures demand accountability at the top.
The Guthrie case has been marked by a series of investigative developments that seem to unfold in spite of the sheriff's office rather than because of it. The FBI focused on a vacant home near Guthrie's Arizona residence during the search's seventh week, a move that underscored federal involvement in a case where local leadership has been questioned at every turn.
Nanos has also publicly discussed investigative theories. The sheriff told reporters investigators believe they know the motive behind Guthrie's kidnapping, a claim that raised as many questions as it answered, given the absence of any suspect in custody.
There is a difference between a department that is working a difficult case and a department that cannot manage basic public communication about that case. The "Nancy has been located" post falls squarely in the second category.
Every missing-persons case generates a community of followers, family members, neighbors, true-crime observers, journalists, who track every official update. In a case involving the mother of a national television personality, that audience is enormous. Posting a first-name-only "located" update about a different Nancy, on the same day you finally break weeks of silence about the Guthrie investigation, is the kind of error that erodes whatever public trust remains.
The department's prior posts about located missing persons reportedly used full names or at least last-name identifiers. The departure from that practice in this specific instance, whether careless or deliberate, invited exactly the confusion it produced.
Meanwhile, leads in the Guthrie case continue to be reassessed by investigators, and DNA analysis remains incomplete. The private Florida lab and the FBI lab are still processing evidence. Seventy-five days in, the family still has no answers.
Several basic questions remain unanswered. What specific DNA evidence, beyond the hairs reported by Entin, has been sent for analysis? Why was the crime scene released so quickly after Guthrie disappeared? Did the department amend or delete the misleading "Nancy has been located" post? And why, after weeks of silence, did the department's social media team fail to anticipate the most obvious misreading imaginable?
The Pima County Sheriff's Department is not the only agency involved. The FBI has been part of the investigation from the start, the department itself acknowledged. But that acknowledgment, "This is not new information", carried a defensive tone that did little to reassure a public already skeptical of the department's competence.
The broader troubles within the Pima County Sheriff's Department extend beyond this single case. An agency that cannot manage its own social media feed during the highest-profile investigation in its recent history invites the question of what else it is mishandling behind closed doors.
Law enforcement agencies earn public trust through results, transparency, and competence in the small things as much as the large ones. A social media post is a small thing. But when that small thing causes a missing woman's family and followers to believe, even for a moment, that she has been found, the failure is not small at all.
Sheriff Nanos and his department owe the Guthrie family, and the public, more than defensive statements and careless posts. Seventy-five days without answers is long enough. The least they can do is get the name right.
