Andrew Deweese: The Mulberry Record
Two dates and a later investigative account.
Abstract
Andrew Deweese’s NamUs entry, MP81222, labels September 14, 2020 as Date of Last Contact. Its narrative instead describes September 12 as the last-seen date. Both labels need to remain visible in his history.1
The Two Date Labels
The entry places the case in Mulberry, Arkansas, and identifies Crawford County Sheriff’s Office reference 2020-2018. Its agency report-date field also gives September 14. A report date and a contact field do not, by themselves, document an observation of Andrew that day.1
NamUs also lists Arkansas State Police, Company E, among the investigating agencies. Those entries identify agencies recorded in the registry; they do not establish which office currently directs every part of the investigation.1
The Rock Creek Road Account
Crawford County’s public appeal describes Andrew as last seen at a house north of Mulberry on Rock Creek Road on September 12, 2020. It supplies a more specific setting than the registry’s city field, without naming the observer or reproducing a witness statement.2
The appeal asks people with information to contact investigators. It does not explain the registry’s September 14 field or document a later sighting. A house named as a last-seen setting should not become an accusation against anyone associated with it.2
The State Record
Arkansas’s Never Forgotten record uses September 12 as its missing date and Van Buren as its city field. It carries the same Crawford agency reference, 2020-2018, connecting the state profile to the registry case. The state entry does not reproduce the underlying observation behind its place field.3
That field needs its own source check. A city in an identifying profile cannot, on its own, establish a journey, a residence or an additional sighting.3
Sourced Accounts and Questions
Here’s where you come in. Can you identify the original contact or observation underlying September 14 before treating that field as Andrew’s latest documented location?1
Can you trace the September 12 house account to its dated original statement, keeping the observer’s account separate from an administrative date?2
Can you establish what documented event the state record’s Van Buren field describes before plotting a route from the Mulberry account?3
Keep your dated sources and questions in a Research File in Almost Solved. Record what each source actually establishes, who supplied the information and which original document could clarify it. An unanswered question is a reason to look for documentation, without assigning blame.
Show later developments and reported outcomes
Later Reporting and Its Limits
Andrew Mobley’s September 2, 2023 KATV report describes an August 30 announcement by the Perry County Sheriff’s Office. It reported that new information had led investigators to treat Andrew’s disappearance as a homicide investigation, with investigator Joe Oberle working with Arkansas State Police on leads.4
KATV attributed to the sheriff’s office a belief that Andrew had been in Perry County with other people. That was an investigative account, not a published finding identifying a responsible person. The report did not reproduce the underlying evidence, and this review did not inspect it. Its 2023 assessment does not establish a present case outcome.4
Scope and Method
Original contact and investigative records were not inspected.
Prepared with AI assistance. Sources and references checked against the cited public materials. This paper is an original synthesis of the identified public sources; it does not reproduce article bodies, transcripts, or an investigative file.
Footnote References
- NamUs MP81222, reviewed November 2, 2026.
- Crawford County Sheriff, Deweese missing-person appeal; reviewed November 2026.
- Arkansas Never Forgotten, record 338; reviewed November 2, 2026.
- Andrew Mobley, KATV, Deweese investigation report, September 2, 2023.