The California Entry

The California Department of Justice’s entry for Aaron Bradley Grainger gives February 6, 2005 as Missing Since and states that he was last seen that day. It lists Aaron Bradley as a nickname and Orange Police Department, case 05020897, as the agency reference.¹

The nickname is an identification aid within this particular record. It is not a reason to merge other people with the same first and middle names into Grainger’s case.

The NamUs Account

NamUs MP127712 gives February 6, 2005 as Date of Last Contact and Orange, California, in Orange County as the location. Its brief narrative describes Grainger as last seen there that day. The circumstances notes point directly to the California Attorney General’s listing.²

The matching full name, date, agency and case number connect the two records. Their agreement is useful for tracing the source trail, but the explicit cross-reference limits what it proves: this is not evidence of a second witness or a separate investigation.

The Event and the Database History

NamUs labels August 18, 2024 as NamUs Case Created, while the reader separately displays a page-level Date Created of May 7, 2026. The agency Date Reported field is blank.² Neither creation label supplies a new observation of Grainger, and the blank reporting field does not establish when police first received a report.

Both reviewed pages name Orange Police Department and case 05020897, but their telephone fields differ. The shared case reference is retained here without presenting either number as a newly verified current contact line.¹²

Sourced Accounts and Questions

The California and NamUs pages share the February 6, 2005 date and Orange case 05020897, and NamUs directly references the California listing.¹² This is a linked source trail, not two established independent witness accounts. The reviewed material does not describe the last observation in detail.

Can you find a publicly released agency statement explaining the time, place and basis of the February 6 observation? Such an account could clarify what the summary fields represent without inventing an encounter, route or destination.

When you compare another notice, can you trace whether it adds a documented event or only republishes one of these listings? Match MP127712 and case 05020897, retaining each source’s event and publication dates separately.¹² A later database creation date alone is not another sighting.

Here’s where you come in: explore these open questions in your own Research File in Almost Solved. Keep the two linked pages together and attach any attributable clarification to the event it explains. Use the recorded nickname as a matching aid, not a reason to merge unrelated people into the case.

Conclusion

The reviewed record supports a dated Orange, California account and a traceable agency reference. It supplies no detailed account of the last encounter, subsequent travel or investigative findings. Those missing details remain questions for attributable evidence, not space to fill with a reconstructed story.