Suzanne Simpson: Evidence Against Brad Simpson

SUMMARY:

My plan is to create a list of articles on this website that won’t be difficult to read because of ads; we will be ready for the trial…if it ever gets here.

I provided Notebook LM with thirteen articles and a YouTube Video and asked it to prepare a report on the evidence against Brad Simpson. Links to all the sources I used are below.

I’m going to keep collecting information on this case for quick reference. Right now, we are still waiting for a trial date.

1. Overview and Fundamentals

The prosecution of Brad Chandler Simpson serves as a premier example of a “no-body” murder case requiring a cohesive thematic anchor to overcome the absence of a decedent. While the defense will undoubtedly exploit the lack of remains, our strategy centers on the “thematic consolidation” of forensic and testimonial layers: the documented progression from domestic violence to digital isolation and, ultimately, a physical disposal trail. This case is further defined by its current legal status; following a January 2026 reset ordered by Judge Joel Perez, the State is currently synthesizing “waves of evidence” trickling in beyond the initial discovery deadline. This summary prepares the trial team for a prosecution that balances high-tech digital footprints with the primitive physical reality of a manual disposal kit.

Case Identifiers

• Defendant: Brad Chandler Simpson (W/M, DOB: 12/30/1970)
• Victim: Suzanne Clark Simpson (W/F, DOB: 06/16/1973)
• Formal Charges:
  • Murder (First Degree Felony)
  • Tampering/Fabricating Physical Evidence (with intent to impair a human corpse)
  • Possession of a Prohibited Weapon (Unregistered Machine Gun)
  • Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon
• Trial Status: 60-day reset (ordered Jan 2026) pending extensive review of new evidentiary “waves.”
• Primary Location: 520 E. Olmos Drive, Olmos Park, TX

The evidentiary record begins with the visceral accounts of witnesses who established the timeline of the fatal struggle on the night of October 6, 2024.

2. Testimonial Evidence: Witness Accounts and Victim Disclosures

In the absence of a body, “excited utterances” and victim disclosures are the primary means of establishing the violent nature of the night in question. This testimony bridges the gap between the Simpson residence and the wooded area where the trail went cold.

The Hernandez Account: Visual and Auditory Sequence

Neighbor Albert Hernandez provides the foundational timeline of the struggle directly across from his residence at 515 E. Olmos Drive:

• 10:00–11:00 pm: Loud arguing erupted in the Simpson front yard.
• Physical Struggle: Hernandez observed the Defendant grappling with Suzanne, pulling her down to prevent her flight.
• The Pursuit: Suzanne broke free and fled westbound; the Defendant was observed in immediate pursuit.
• The “Screams”: After losing visual contact, Hernandez heard “two to three screams” emanating from the wooded area across from his home.
• Vehicle Movements: Hernandez documented the Defendant’s GMC truck departing the residence approximately one hour after the screams and returning roughly one hour later.
• Prosecutorial Vulnerability: The defense will challenge Hernandez’s credibility based on his failure to contact police on the night of the incident.

Statements from the Minor Child

The Simpsons’ five-year-old daughter provided critical immediate disclosures to staff at the Howard Early Childhood Center:

• Assault Description: The child reported her father pushing the mother against a wall and hitting her in the face.
• Specific Injury: She noted the Defendant “hurt her mother’s elbow” during the fight.
• Interference: The child explicitly stated the Defendant “turned off her mother’s phone” during the altercation.

Final Victim Communications and Prior Acts (Rule 404(b))

The victim’s final contacts establish a pattern of communication interference that predates the murder:

• 9:16 pm Call: Suzanne reported to her mother, Barbara Clark, that the Defendant had assaulted her (neck, back, and arm pain).
• Prophetic Statement: Suzanne previously told her personal banker, “If I ever go missing, look for me in a lake”—a haunting thematic anchor for our “no-body” theory.
• Sept 17, 2023 Text: In a prior incident, the Defendant admitted via text: “I never should have grabbed her phone and drove off but she was so protective of it.” This admission establishes a long-term pattern of using phone confiscation as a tool of domestic control.
• Strategist’s Note: The mother’s suspicion that the conflict was “alcohol-related” must be anticipated; the defense may attempt a “sudden passion” or “diminished capacity” argument.

3. Digital Forensics: Evasion and Communication Interference

The Defendant’s “consciousness of guilt” is digitally documented through a sequence of cell service suspensions and device “lockdowns” that coincide perfectly with the reported assault.

The AT&T Application Incident

At 9:16 pm—the exact moment Suzanne was on the phone with her mother reporting an assault—her cell service was manually suspended. Evidence shows the Defendant accessed the AT&T application at that precise moment to execute the suspension. This proves the Defendant’s later claim that Suzanne “lost” her phone at HEB was a calculated lie.

FBI Forensic Analysis: “Lockdown Mode”

FBI Examiners identified the Defendant’s sophisticated use of “Lockdown Mode” to prevent geolocation and data extraction.

• Evasive Cycling: Between 11:09 pm on Oct 6 and Oct 7, the Defendant engaged in repeated on/off cycles of his iPhone 14.
• Intentionality: Investigators define this usage as an intentional “digital blackout” specifically designed to avoid detection during the disposal window.

“Find My” Application Data

Chandler Simpson (the couple’s 20-year-old daughter) provided data placing Suzanne’s iPhone at the 520 E. Olmos Drive residence at 10:22 pm on Oct 6. This confirms Suzanne and her device returned to the home after her earlier HEB trip, further debunking the “lost phone” narrative.

4. Physical Evidence and Surveillance: The Disposal Timeline

The “body disposal kit” was acquired during a documented shopping trip in Boerne on October 7, 2024. The transformation of these items from household goods to criminal tools is established by the Defendant’s movements.

Surveillance and Transit Timeline: October 7, 2024

• 07:53 am (School): Defendant’s GMC truck bed contained white trash bags with red strings and a large ice chest.
• 09:12 am (Whataburger, Boerne): Truck bed now contained a “large bulky item” wrapped in a blue tarp, secured by a metal firewood rack.
• 09:53 am (Home Depot, Boerne): The Defendant made a cash purchase of two bags of Quikrete cement, a construction bucket, heavy-duty trash bags, Clorox disinfectant, and insect repellent.
• 10:07 am (License Plate Reader): Visual confirmation of the tarped object and the new Home Depot materials in transit.

The Kendall County Waste Site Interaction

While his phone was powered off, the Defendant approached a stranger, Joseph Austin Maxwell, for directions to the “nearest dump.” Maxwell provided directions to the Kendall County Solid Waste Site on Spanish Pass Road. Geolocation data later placed the Defendant at or near this specific site.

The “Bandera Ranch Gap” and Cleaning

• 13-Minute Window: Vehicle data shows the Defendant in a remote area of Medina/Bandera for 13 minutes. Upon exiting this gap, the blue tarp and bulky item were no longer in the truck bed.
• Post-Disposal Wash: At 4:07 pm, the Defendant was recorded at a car wash. Investigators later found dried cement splashes in the rear passenger compartment.
• Vulnerability Alert: Blood stains found in the truck were confirmed by the lab to belong to the Defendant (Brad). The defense will use this to argue the altercation resulted in his own minor injuries, not a homicide.

5. Defendant Actions and Statements: Consciousness of Guilt

The Defendant’s shifting narrative is a primary indicator of a “guilty mind,” as shown by his conflicting accounts to law enforcement.

Comparative Analysis of Defendant Statements

iPhone “Notes” and Burn Pile Findings

Forensic extraction of the Defendant’s iPhone 14 revealed notes created on October 8 titled “This next life” and “Last will and testament.” These documents contained explicit apologies for assaults committed in August 2023 and October 6, 2024.

Furthermore, during his arrest at the Bandera property, the Defendant was found near an active burn pile. Investigators recovered:

• Three (3) cell phones (charred)
• One (1) laptop (charred) This intentional destruction of multiple channels of communication underscores a broad effort to eliminate evidence.

6. Ancillary Charges and Accomplice Involvement

The weapon and tampering charges provide additional leverage by documenting the Defendant’s reliance on a criminal network to hide the primary offense.

The Involvement of James Valle Cotter

Long-time business partner James Valle Cotter assisted in the concealment of evidence following a series of panicked texts from the Defendant, including the admission: “social media is destroying me.”

• Instructional Texts: The Defendant messaged Cotter to “haul a**” and “leave all that s*** in the pump house, especially that gun.”
• Dominion Home Discovery: A search of Cotter’s San Antonio home in the Dominion revealed a Chinese-manufactured AK-47 (fully automatic “machine gun”) hidden behind a false wall, specifically concealed behind a mounted TV.

Resulting Additional Charges

• Tampering with Physical Evidence (intent to impair an investigation/corpse).
• Possession of a Prohibited Weapon (Machine Gun).

Conclusion

The State’s case against Brad Chandler Simpson rests on a mountain of circumstantial data that, when synthesized, points to a singular conclusion. From the manual suspension of cellular service during an assault to the cash purchase of cement and the documented “disappearance” of a body-sized object in Bandera County, the Defendant’s actions are incompatible with innocence. Despite the current trial delays and the absence of Suzanne’s remains, the convergence of digital lockdown, physical disposal patterns, and the recovery of concealed illegal weaponry provides an extensive evidentiary record sufficient to secure a First Degree Murder conviction.

SOURCES:

Photos on my website:

Suzanne Simpson (Bradley Simpson, Suspect in her Murder) Plus+ Page

Quick Summary – The Day She Disappeared

Suzanne Simpson Case (2024) Quick Summary

Brad Simpson’s Arrest Warrant and Supporting Affidavit Unsealed.

Brad Simpson’s Arrest Warrant and Supporting Affidavit Unsealed.

Stephanie Harlowe’s Video on this case:

Articles from KSAT.COM
https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2026/05/14/brad-simpson-expected-back-in-court-for-status-hearing-regarding-murder-2-other-felony-charges/

https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2024/10/08/olmos-park-pd-searching-for-woman-last-seen-on-sunday/

https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2024/10/09/husband-of-missing-olmos-park-woman-arrested-on-family-violence-charges-in-kendall-county/

https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2024/10/10/what-we-know-about-missing-olmos-park-woman-suzanne-clark-simpson/

https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2024/10/23/brad-simpson-faces-fabricating-with-evidence-prohibited-weapon-related-charges-records-show/

https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2024/10/10/rumor-mill-working-overtime-as-police-put-in-long-hours-searching-for-missing-olmos-park-woman/

https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2024/10/08/olmos-park-pd-searching-for-woman-last-seen-on-sunday/

https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2024/10/09/affidavit-missing-olmos-park-womans-husband-uncooperative-neighbor-heard-screams-after-fight/

https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2024/10/08/olmos-park-pd-searching-for-woman-last-seen-on-sunday/