Nearly eight months after Nancy Guthrie vanished, authorities are investigating what could be a new ransom note in the case.

Guthrie, 84, the mother of Today show host Savannah Guthrie, was forcibly taken from her home in the Tucson area on February 1. Her disappearance has drawn national attention and remained in the headlines for months.

In the early stages of the investigation, the Guthrie family received two disturbing ransom notes. Police released both documents in full in July. One demanded $4 million, while the other claimed Nancy had died before offering an apology.

Authorities are now examining the possibility that a third ransom note has surfaced.

Late Monday evening, the Pima County Sheriff’s Department said in a statement: “The PCSD/FBI Guthrie Task Force was recently made aware of a new possible ransom note related to the Nancy Guthrie investigation.

“Investigators are also aware of social media comments regarding the note and are looking further into the information to determine its credibility.”

The Pima County Sheriff’s Department is leading the investigation into the abduction with assistance from the FBI.

Police have not disclosed the contents of the possible ransom note, and their statement did not confirm whether the document is genuine.

A Pima County Sheriff’s Department spokesperson told 13 News that officials have “some skepticism” about the note’s validity.

Investigators previously said one of the ransom notes released in July might be authentic because it included specific details about Guthrie’s home. Those details included a broken floodlight in the backyard and a white smartwatch discovered on her bedroom floor.

The second note did not offer similarly specific information, but its tone closely resembled the first. That raised the possibility that both notes had been written by the same person.

Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos said in July that investigators published the notes in hopes that someone might recognize the writer’s unusual wording, expressions or writing style.

The FBI has also released surveillance footage showing a masked man who authorities said appeared to interfere with a camera on Guthrie’s front porch, eventually blocking it with a plant. Investigators described the individual as a male approximately 5 feet, 9 inches tall.

SEE ALSO: Kendall Jenner Leads Star-Studded L’Oréal Catwalk in Paris

Authorities are asking the public to report anyone who began behaving unusually, altered their physical appearance, suddenly left the Tucson area or showed a noticeable and unexplained interest—or lack of interest—in the investigation.

“We’re still here. We are not going away,” Sheriff Nanos said two months ago. “We’ve got a lot of work ahead of us.”

For now, it remains unknown whether the 84-year-old is still alive, despite a previous ransom note claiming that she had died.

If the new ransom note is determined to be legitimate, it may be evidence that the elderly woman is alive.

Prior to the revelation of the potential new ransom note, one of the most recent updates in the investigation came last month, when officers were seen scouring through the brush outside of Guthrie’s home.

They may have been looking for new clues after heavy rains in the area altered the landscape, potentially exposing or moving evidence that investigators had not previously noted, Bob Krygier, a retired Pima County Sheriff’s Department lieutenant, suggested to Fox News at the time.

However, it is also possible that authorities decided just to return to the area to take a fresh look at the crime scene after six months with no leads, the former lieutenant said, noting he was ‘certain that they’ve searched those areas already.’

Alternatively, new leads in the case may have led investigators to search the brush, looking for something specific, Krygier suggested.

It is unclear whether that search led to any new evidence or breaks in the case. 

The Guthrie family has offered a reward of up to $1 million for information leading to Nancy’s recovery. 

The family has yet to publicly address reports of the potential new ransom note.

The first woman sentenced to death in Tennessee in two centuries says she is “at peace” ahead of her scheduled execution, after Gov. Bill Lee declined to intervene in her final appeal for clemency.

“Whether my clemency is granted or not, I am at peace,” convicted murderer Christa Pike wrote in a letter to NBC News before learning that Lee would not commute her sentence.

“I am not afraid to die,” Pike wrote. “I’m only nervous about the process.”

Pike, 50, is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection on Wednesday. If carried out, it will mark Tennessee’s first execution of a woman in more than 200 years.

Pike was 18 when she lured 19-year-old Colleen Slemmer, a fellow Job Corps student, to an isolated area of the University of Tennessee campus in Knoxville. On Jan. 12, 1995, Pike and her boyfriend tortured Slemmer and killed her in what prosecutors described as a jealous rage.

Pike’s attorneys have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the execution, arguing that her post-traumatic stress disorder could cause “severe mental suffering and superadded psychological terror” as she is restrained on a gurney for the lethal injection, NBC News reported.

Her lawyers also say a childhood marked by sexual and physical abuse, neglect and domestic violence was never adequately addressed by the adults and institutions responsible for her care. They argue that the trauma was not properly considered by the jury when it weighed the death penalty.

Pike has additionally requested that an all-female team administer the lethal injection, saying the presence of men during her final moments could trigger further trauma.

Tennessee corrections officials have said they will attempt to accommodate some of those requests. NBC reported that female guards may escort Pike from the Nashville prison to a nearby maximum-security facility within 24 hours of the execution.

Officials may also approve her request for an entirely female execution team.

EXPLORE MORE: Celebrity Publicist Rescues Unconscious Surfer From Rough LA Waves

Pike was among the youngest women in the United States to receive a death sentence when she was condemned in March 1996. She was later diagnosed with bipolar disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder.

In a 226-page clemency petition filed in September, Pike’s attorneys argued that untreated mental illness and years of trauma left her unable to “put the brakes on.”

“I was a mentally ill 18-year-old kid. It took me numerous years to even realize the gravity of what I’d done. Even more to accept how many lives I affected. I took the life of someone’s child, sister, friend. It sickens me now to think I had the ability to commit such a crime,” Pike said in a statement included with the petition.

Pike attacked Slemmer with a box cutter before beating her with a large piece of asphalt. Pike’s boyfriend, Tadaryl Shipp, also carved a Satanic pentagram into the victim’s body.

The brutality of the killing and the occult symbol shocked Knoxville, intensifying the “satanic panic” that swept through the United States during the 1980s and 1990s.

Slemmer’s mother, May Martinez, has said she wants the execution to proceed.

“Every time I think about it, I think about Colleen feeling that pain and trying to get up and run,” Martinez told The Associated Press.

“Not a day goes by, or a minute goes by that I do not think about Colleen. Holidays are the worst. Colleen’s birthday was last week. She would have been 51,” Martinez said.

Shipp, who was 17 when the murder occurred, received a life sentence with the possibility of parole because of his age. He was denied parole last year. A third teenager who acknowledged acting as an accessory was sentenced to probation.

With Post Wires

PLYMOUTH, Mass. — A Massachusetts judge is expected to hear arguments Tuesday on Lindsay Clancy’s double jeopardy motion. Meanwhile, a separate effort to investigate the lone holdout juror from her mistrial may be delayed, at least for now.

Clancy is expected to appear in person for the first time since her trial ended with a deadlocked jury and the judge declared a mistrial on Sept. 4.

Her case has continued to draw national attention in the weeks since the mistrial. Several jurors and Clancy’s defense attorney have criticized the lone holdout, while the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office, led by Tim Cruz, has said little publicly about whether it plans to seek a retrial.

Here is what to expect when Clancy returns to court:

Defense calls to investigate the holdout juror

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington has asked the court to investigate the lone holdout juror, Michael Desronvil, whom he has called “the obstructionist juror.” Desronvil disagreed with the other 11 jurors and remained the only panel member who wanted to convict Clancy.

Edward Paltzik, the attorney for Desronvil, said Reddington and Plymouth County prosecutors agreed to postpone the motion after he objected. Paltzik said he and his client had not yet received access to impounded materials needed to prepare a response.

“The DA and Reddington consent to adjourn the motion to investigate Michael,” Paltzik told Fox News’ Kayleigh McEnany on Monday.

“If Judge Sullivan signs an order today, much of it could be adjourned,” Paltzik said. “Either way, a status conference is still likely.”

Reddington strongly disputed that characterization, while acknowledging that he and the district attorney’s office agreed to delay the motion as a professional courtesy to the local attorney now representing Desronvil.

“Earlier today, both the government and I were contacted by a professional local attorney who represents Juror Doe,” Reddington said, referring to the juror without using his name because of a court impoundment order. “That attorney requested — as any qualified counsel would — adequate time to review our motion and reply.”

He continued: “As is professional courtesy, both the government and I agreed to continue this specific motion to a later date at their request. The motion remains active, fully alive, and is currently pending a ruling from Judge Sullivan. We will not allow a publicity-seeking opportunist to twist simple courtroom courtesy into a victory that does not exist.”

Although the terms “adjourned” and “continued” are sometimes used interchangeably, they have different legal meanings.

“Adjournment generally signifies that something like a hearing is off indefinitely, especially because no date is specified,” explained retired Massachusetts Judge Carol Erskine. “A continuance is a simple request by a party or two parties to get a new date. [Reddington] objects because adjournment is a misrepresentation of what is happening.”

If Reddington’s request is ultimately granted, the court could hold a Fidler hearing, during which the judge would question Desronvil.

“There are three phases to a hearing like that,” said Erskine, who is also a child welfare advocate and has closely followed the case. “This is something that could result in a strong manifest necessity claim, but it’s hard to tell until it happens.”

Manifest necessity is the legal standard required to hold a second trial. Erskine said the motion is a long-shot but Reddington is likely laying the foundation for an appeal in the future.

“The big issue, in my opinion, is whether outside information came into the jury room and whether a judge can find that any ‘hypothetical juror’ would let it influence his decision,” she told News Media. “It’s definitely more complicated than that, but there is case law about it.”

Could the holdout sue Reddington?

“This is a strange new world in which disagreeing jurors and their surrogates conduct a public debate after the trial in the media and social media,” said Jack Lu, another retired Massachusetts judge.

Reddington’s request for an inquiry into Desronvil is largely based on allegations from other jurors who accused him of having reasonable doubt about the case and ignoring it. He is seeking phone records, his confidential juror questionnaire and police records.

However, he’s also called him an “obstructionist” outside the courtroom and accused him of having an “agenda.”

“[The other jurors] know that they were robbed — by one man — for whatever his agenda was, who stole seven weeks of the life of these other jurors that were so attentive, so beautiful, so wonderful and listened to this evidence,” he told reporters after leaving the courthouse on Sept. 4, the day the mistrial was declared. 

Still, he downplayed speculation from legal analysts about a potential defamation lawsuit from the holdout against Clancy’s team.

“Defamation law is textbook complex,” he told News Media. “Statements made in court proceedings are privileged.”

Statements made out of court that could appear to be “false statements of fact” may end up being considered opinions, he added.

“If a person says X happened, and we all know that person was not present, then it may be deemed to be an opinion,” he said. “This might apply to any alleged statements about what happened in the jury room.”

What’s next?

“I don’t think any of the legal maneuvering, double jeopardy, all that stuff, a hearing in the trial court with the juror, I don’t think it’s going anywhere,” said Mark Bederow, a New York-based criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor who is following the case.

“If you get down to brass tacks, once you get through all this, now you have to look at the DA and say, what are you doing?” he added.

Most prosecutors would not seek a second trial in a case where only one juror agreed with them, he said, but that appears unlikely in this case.

“At the first trial, the prosecution, in my view, failed miserably to satisfy their burden — but there is a credible argument that she’s guilty and intended to cause their deaths and knew right from wrong,” he said. “In order for them to win, they need to get better experts.”

The Commonwealth needs experts who can discredit Clancy’s defense experts, he said. And prosecutors also have room to improve their jury selection.

As for Reddington, he described him as “a titan of the Massachusetts bar” who is filing motions that make sense for his client’s benefit, regardless of his commentary outside the courtroom.

“That’s not frivolous, and any lawyer knows that,” he told News Media.