The disappearance of Nancy Guthrie has taken another dramatic turn — this time ignited not by investigators, but by a controversial media claim that sparked fierce backlash.
Veteran journalist Ashleigh Banfield is facing mounting criticism after publicly suggesting that Tommaso Cioni, the brother-in-law of Today anchor Savannah Guthrie, could be a suspect in the case of the missing elderly woman.
The Claim That Sparked the Firestorm
Banfield made the bombshell allegation during a February 3 episode of her Drop Dead Serious podcast, titled Stunning New Twist: Savannah’s Sister’s Car Seized, Cameras Smashed.
During the episode, Banfield told listeners that Annie Guthrie’s vehicle had been towed and alleged a connection between the car and her husband, Cioni.
“My law enforcement source tells me that Tommaso Cioni is the prime suspect in this case,” Banfield claimed, later softening her wording by noting that family members are often scrutinized early in investigations.
Despite the clarification, the damage was immediate — with critics accusing Banfield of irresponsibly naming a private individual amid an active and sensitive investigation.
Sheriff Pushes Back Hard
Within days, Chris Nanos publicly rejected Banfield’s claims during a February 5 press conference.
“We don’t have anybody listed as a suspect,” Nanos said.
“Nobody’s been eliminated, but we simply don’t have enough to say, ‘This is our person.’”
The sheriff went further, calling the report “irresponsible” and “reckless,” warning that publicly labeling someone a suspect could wrongly victimize innocent people.
“They could very well be a victim,” he stressed.
Source: MEGA;
Banfield Refuses to Back Down
Despite the official pushback, Banfield has doubled down.
She told Status newsletter that she stands by her reporting, while a producer later told The Hollywood Reporter that Banfield remains confident in what she described as an “ironclad source.”
Banfield also repeated similar claims on The Ryan Gorman Show, insisting that internal discussions within law enforcement agencies may differ from what is shared publicly.
“Just because a person of interest hasn’t been named publicly doesn’t mean investigators aren’t looking closely at someone behind the scenes,” she said, adding that this does not imply an arrest is imminent.
