Prosecutors have filed evidence-tampering and corpse-abandonment cases while police continue investigating the circumstances that led to the Kansas City woman’s death.
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Four people have been charged in the case of Amber Simpson, but the most serious question remains unanswered: Authorities have accused them of crimes involving her remains, not of causing the 41-year-old woman’s death.
That distinction has become more important as the investigation has widened. Damon Thomason, Felix Watson, Brianna Nicole Willis and Joseph Kitara each face allegations tied to the alleged abandonment of Simpson’s body and tampering with evidence. The cases provide prosecutors with a framework for what they contend occurred after Simpson died. They do not yet provide a criminal charge describing who killed her, how she died or what evidence would establish legal responsibility for her death. Kansas City police have continued to describe the matter as a death investigation.
The strongest public accusation about the killing itself comes from a source whose claim has not been proved. According to probable cause material summarized by local news outlets, an anonymous tip accused Willis of killing Simpson before her body was taken to rural Saline County and burned. Another witness told investigators that Simpson had been involved in a sexual relationship with Willis’ business partner and alleged that Willis was responsible for her death. Those claims helped guide the investigation, but an accusation supplied to police is not the same as a criminal charge or a finding of fact.
Prosecutors have so far stopped short of making that leap. Willis, 35, was charged with abandonment of a corpse and tampering with physical evidence, as was Kitara, 34. Thomason, 54, and Watson, 30, were charged earlier with the same offenses. Reporting through August repeatedly noted that none of the four had been charged with murder. That leaves the case in an unusual public posture: investigators have described substantial evidence about the destruction and concealment of Simpson’s remains while releasing far less information about the event that caused her death.
Some of that evidence came directly from the rural property where the remains were recovered. Investigators executed a search warrant June 18 at land near Nelson belonging to Thomason. A cadaver dog alerted near a burn area, and officers recovered numerous human bones from in and around the site. Reports on the court records also described animal bones, burned tires and a burned fire poker. A University of Missouri forensic anthropologist helped recover the remains and concluded that the human bones had undergone severe degradation from an extended fire or repeated burning.
The condition of the remains established that fire had substantially altered them, but it did not answer the cause-of-death question. Authorities have not publicly released a medical examiner’s finding explaining how Simpson died or said whether injuries could be identified despite the condition of the remains. The available police statements therefore support a narrower conclusion: Simpson’s body was taken to the rural site and burned, according to investigators. Whether the fire occurred before or after the fatal event, and what specifically caused her death, has not been publicly established.
Thomason’s account, as described in the probable cause statement, focused on what he said he noticed after burning had already occurred. He allegedly told detectives he saw what appeared to be a large leg bone and became suspicious that a body had been burned. He denied participating in burning Simpson’s remains but acknowledged telling Watson to clean the area. Investigators quoted him as indicating that he eventually believed the remains could be those of the missing woman. His statements are part of the prosecution’s evidence concerning alleged concealment, not a final determination of his responsibility.
Watson gave investigators a different account. He said a man and two women had come to the property and gone into the area behind the residence, according to the charging documents. He acknowledged burning materials in the vicinity but denied knowing that a body was being burned. Investigators said they found a medical identification bracelet associated with Watson close to the human remains. When detectives questioned him about the bracelet, he provided explanations before ending the interview and asking for an attorney. His request for counsel was an exercise of a legal right and should not be treated as evidence of guilt.
The later cases against Kitara and Willis added two forms of evidence that were different from the physical items at the burn site. Deputies said Thomason and Watson identified the pair as people who were at the property on the morning of May 28, when authorities allege Simpson’s body was placed in the burn area. Investigators also said cellphone data put Kitara in the Nelson area that morning. Those details may help establish who was present, but presence alone does not establish who caused Simpson’s death or what each person knew before arriving at the property.
The disappearance timeline is another unresolved part of the case. Police reports have not been entirely consistent about Simpson’s last known whereabouts. A June public appeal placed her last sighting on May 27 near East 23rd Street and Kensington Avenue in Kansas City. Later police information said the June 3 missing-person report listed approximately May 10 as her last known sighting, while a Missouri State Highway Patrol bulletin gave May 3 as the last-contact date. Authorities have not publicly explained the discrepancies. Establishing when Simpson was last verifiably alive could become important to evaluating witness accounts and electronic records.
The positive identification of the remains was therefore a major result without being a complete solution. Kansas City’s crime laboratory obtained DNA from biological material associated with the bones, and authorities announced in late July that the remains were Simpson’s. The finding ended uncertainty about whether the Nelson evidence was connected to the missing woman. It also allowed police to move publicly from a missing-person investigation to a death investigation and to coordinate with prosecutors considering charges against people identified during the inquiry.
The DNA result also demonstrates the difference between identification evidence and evidence of criminal responsibility. It can reliably connect the remains to Simpson, but it cannot by itself explain the events before her body reached the field. Investigators must evaluate witness statements, phone records, physical evidence and any medical findings together. Public reporting does not establish whether police have additional evidence that has not been disclosed, and authorities have not announced whether they have determined a cause or manner of death.
Simpson’s relatives have spoken publicly about the danger of allowing the circumstances of her death to become the only thing remembered about her. Family members described her as funny, generous and welcoming. At an Aug. 21 vigil at Ashland Park in Kansas City, her niece, Kira Robinett, spoke about Simpson as a mother, sister and aunt and expressed the family’s desire for accountability. Earlier interviews with relatives similarly emphasized that Simpson’s personal struggles did not define her relationship with those who loved her.
The vigil came while the four defendants were moving through the Saline County court system. Reports said all four were expected to have additional proceedings in late August, with some earlier accounts listing separate hearing dates for individual defendants. No verified report located for this article established that prosecutors subsequently filed a murder charge. That absence does not predict whether such a charge will ever be brought; it simply reflects the public status of the case as of Sept. 9.
For investigators, the case has already answered two difficult questions: Simpson is no longer missing, and the remains recovered near Nelson have been identified as hers. For prosecutors, the existing cases allege that four people participated in concealing or improperly disposing of those remains. The unanswered issue is the one that carries the greatest consequence. Until authorities establish what caused Simpson’s death and whether the evidence supports charges against any person for causing it, the investigation remains incomplete.
Author note: Last updated September 9, 2026.