The NamUs Departure Account

NamUs MP147757 identifies Aaron Bradley Frazier, missing age 52, with Galesburg, Illinois and Knox County in its location fields. It gives March 27, 2025 as Date of Last Contact and describes him leaving a residence that day. The account says he left without possessions, including a phone, identification, money, medication or a vehicle.¹

This is the record’s account of a departure. It does not establish where he went next, why he left, or a medical diagnosis. The reference to medication does not justify supplying any of those missing explanations.

The July Public Appeal

KWQC Staff’s July 14, 2025 report identifies a missing man as Aaron Frazier and attributes an April 2 last-seen date in Galesburg to a Facebook post. It reports police concern arising from the family’s lack of contact since early April.²

The report also describes a forehead tattoo reading Chaos, a distinctive feature listed in NamUs.¹² The shared name, place and feature support treating this as relevant reporting about the same person. They do not settle which contact date is correct. The original social-media post was not independently reviewed for this paper; the account of it remains attributed to KWQC.

Three Different Kinds of Date

NamUs gives April 3, 2025 as the agency Date Reported and July 15, 2025 as NamUs Case Created. Elsewhere the reader displays a page-level Date Created of May 7, 2026.¹ Those labels belong to different parts of the public record. No explanation for the two creation dates is supplied here.

March 27 in NamUs and April 2 in the news report are competing last-contact or last-seen descriptions. April 3 is an agency reporting field. July 14 is the news publication date. Combining them into a single missing-since date would erase the difference the sources actually present.

Matching the Agency Record

The NamUs investigating-agency entry names Galesburg Police Department and case 25-12796.¹ That case number provides a stable reference for a future attributable correction. It does not establish that a correction has already been made.

KWQC’s article and NamUs display different telephone numbers and different age descriptions. This paper does not choose between them as a current contact directory or calculate a birth date. The source register retains the differences for checking rather than silently harmonizing the accounts.

Sourced Accounts and Questions

NamUs gives March 27, 2025 for a departure, while KWQC reports an April 2 last-seen date attributed to a Facebook post.¹² These published descriptions differ. The original post was not independently reviewed for this paper, and the relationship between the two dates remains unestablished.

Can you find a dated agency clarification explaining what event supports each date? A statement explicitly connecting or correcting the entries could distinguish separate contacts from a record difference. Until then, keep both descriptions attributed rather than assuming an intervening return or journey.

As you trace KWQC’s account to its source, can you find the original post it cites and check who published it, when and how it describes the last observation?² Note whether it records a direct statement or repeats another account. Do not treat the news publication date as another contact.

Here’s where you come in: explore these open questions in your own Research File in Almost Solved. Keep MP147757, Galesburg case 25-12796 and the July 14 report together. Preserve the March/April difference and leave reasons for departure or unreported movements open unless documented evidence clarifies them.

Conclusion

Frazier’s public record has a specific departure account and a contemporary appeal, but their dates do not align. The useful research task is to retain the March and April accounts with their sources, while keeping reporting and database dates separate. A later agency clarification would add evidence; an editorial guess would not.