What forensic evidence have authorities publicly released about blood and DNA from the Nancy Guthrie scene?
Executive summary
Authorities have publicly confirmed that blood was found at or near the front porch/entrance of Nancy Guthrie’s home and that rapid DNA testing matched that blood to Nancy Guthrie (the victim) [1] [2] [3]. Investigators also say they collected additional “biological DNA‑type” evidence from the house and submitted multiple samples to labs, but those other samples have so far produced limited leads or minimal suspect DNA profiles, according to law enforcement statements [4] [5] [6].
1. The concrete confirmation: porch blood matched Nancy Guthrie
Sheriff Chris Nanos and multiple outlets reported that blood located on the exterior porch/front door area was tested and returned a DNA profile matching Nancy Guthrie, an 84‑year‑old who was reported missing, a fact publicly stated at news briefings and repeated across national reporting [1] [2] [3].
2. What else was collected and sent to labs: “biological DNA‑type evidence”
From the earliest public briefings, investigators said they had recovered other biological material inside the residence and characterized it as DNA‑type evidence that was being submitted to forensic laboratories for analysis; officials emphasized a range of evidence collection consistent with crime‑scene processing (blood, possible trace DNA, fingerprints) and that further testing was underway [4] [7].
3. Results beyond the porch sample: limited suspect leads so far
Officials have cautioned that while some laboratory results have returned, none so far constitute a clear investigative “Aha” — investigators described other DNA targets as producing minimal or non‑probative results and said they had not yet identified suspect DNA from the remaining samples [5] [8] [6].
4. Rapid testing versus full lab work — the timeline and caveats
Authorities described attempting “rapid” DNA testing on the porch blood to get a preliminary identification, which confirmed it belonged to Nancy Guthrie, while also noting the slower, more complex process for other samples and digital evidence; sheriffs warned that crime‑lab work takes time and that some results that appear on TV dramas do not reflect real‑world forensic timelines [8] [5].
5. Evidence handling, scene re‑entries, and investigative context
Law enforcement acknowledged returning to the property with federal partners, canine units and forensic teams to continue collection and to comb for trace DNA and other physical evidence, and they stressed that the scene had been treated as a crime scene because conditions inside were “very concerning,” though officials did not publicly enumerate every piece of material evidence beyond the porch blood match [1] [9] [10].
6. Limits of what has been publicly released and remaining unknowns
Public statements and reporting make two things clear: the porch blood match to Nancy is the primary forensic fact released [1] [2], and multiple other DNA samples were collected and sent to labs but have either not produced usable suspect profiles or the results have not been publicly disclosed in detail — investigators have therefore withheld or are still awaiting lab conclusions on those items [4] [5] [6]. Where reporting mentions ransom notes or other investigatory leads, officials have said those materials are being treated as evidence but have not tied them to specific forensic DNA findings in public statements [8] [7].