This case has really interested me since I heard about it on the Thin Air podcast. I'd been meaning to post my view for a while but after reading SJ16321's post, he's summed up what I think better than I could! I agree with all of his points and I have a few bits to add of my own.
I think this should have been a straightforward case but police incompetency has made it more mysterious than it should be. Like SJ16321, I also think Andrew was groomed online and met this person in London. Upon hearing and reading about the case, this was my initial theory, until his lack of internet access made me consider otherwise. I think this is a red herring though, and like SJ16321, I also think the return ticket is a red herring and a completely irrelevant piece of information.
Lack of computer access and avoiding the school bus - The lack of computer access is what initially confused me, as like I said, I immediately thought it was an online predator, then Andrew's Dad said that they didn't have internet access at home. Like SJ16321 said, Andrew would have had daily online access at school. Proxies were commonplace when I was around Andrew's age in 2003, and I even remember a website disguised as a work site that was actually a *advertiser censored* site, so blocking and filtering was inept and almost certainly would have been inept in Andrew's school in 2007.
When it got to his school internet access on the Thin Air podcast, this was quickly dismissed with "oh, the police checked the school computer's and didn't find anything". Based on how utterly incompetent the police were throughout this case, I think it's laughable to think that they would have been any more competent with checking Andrew's school internet access. I imagine they would have came into the school, asked the teacher what computer Andrew sat at in his IT class, loaded the computer, checked the history on Internet Explorer, and when nothing that was obviously suspicious appeared, finished their search. I'm unsure exactly how tracking works in a school but I imagine the internet history would be linked to the pupil's logon. I highly doubt the police would have isolated Andrew's internet access over the term and combed through each visited website, so I think dismissing this point with "the police checked it and found nothing" is incredibly unwise.
Regarding the bus journey home, I have a different theory on why he stopped taking the bus. I initially thought it may be due to bullying, and I do think bullying was a likely scenario in his life, however, with the bus, I feel like his Dad assumed that Andrew walked home, whereas I believe he may have missed the initial bus that he usually took and taken a later bus (even if he couldn’t take a school bus, it’s possible he could have taken a local bus). I feel that it’s possible he was using the computers after school to talk to the online predator he later met in London, then taking a later bus home and with the time it took, his parents either assumed he was walking or he lied and said he walked. I’ve also looked up the distance between his house and the school and it’s nearly 5 miles, or a 1 hour and 30 minute walk, which is a hell of a slog for someone walking home from school, and seems somewhat unrealistic for this to be done daily, even if he was being bullied. I looked up the buses and it seems that nowadays there are 2 buses that come around the time school finishes that take 25 minutes then after that the next bus is a minute walk down the road and takes around 45 minutes. Obviously things may have changed now, but I can’t imagine it’s changed massively. Andrew could have got this later bus after using the internet at school and based on the fact that his parents didn’t realise he was missing until dinner time, I think it’s fair to say that they didn’t know how long it would take him to get home, possibly due to them not being home until after he was.
Lack of a return ticket – I think this is a big red herring and is completely and utterly irrelevant. The only theory that him buying a single ticket would further is that he planned to either commit suicide or he planned to start a new life, both of which are utterly ridiculous theories. I’m making an assumption that Andrew was socially awkward based on what I’ve read and heard, so I imagine him saying “ticket to King’s Cross, please”, then the cashier asking if he wanted a return and him just grunting “no”, so he could get out of the conversation. Like SJ16321 said, he was probably scared that he would be found out for skipping school, so he would want to finish the conversation as soon as possible, and then deal with buying another ticket later when he wanted to come home. There’s also the possibility that he was confused on how a return worked, as he was potentially planning to stay with family in London so perhaps thought a return was only for the same day. I just think the lack of a return ticket is blown up into far more than it is just because it’s mysterious, “but if he wanted to return, why didn’t he buy a return ticket?!”. I really don’t think it’s important at all, and his Dad said as much.
Theories I believe are 100% incorrect
Suicide – This is a truly bizarre theory because it’s so unlikely that someone could commit suicide in a place he doesn’t live and for the body to not be found for 10 years. Granted, in the initial months of the case it would be possible albeit unlikely, but now, no way.
Starting a new life – This is also a truly bizarre theory because it wants you to believe that a 14 year old child could start a new life in a new city with no money and zero street smarts. Every time this theory gets brought up it’s always mentioned how “clever” Andrew is. Andrew may have been good at maths, but I’m sure we all knew a maths genius at school who had zero social skills. I’m not saying Andrew had zero social skills but his ability for maths is irrelevant to survival on the streets and the intricacies of starting a new life. A fully grown adult would find it hard, let alone a child. I also find amazing that his enjoyment of a TV series is brought up, like this 14 year old kid enjoyed a TV show about a man who started a new life and suddenly wanted to do it himself. I think this theory arose because his parents would have loved to have believed it was true, but it’s unrealistic on numerous levels.
My view on the timeline
- Andrew started talking online at the start of the new school term to someone who was grooming him.
- He started missing the bus home to talk to this person on the computer’s after school, taking a later bus.
- He arranged to meet this person on the day he went missing.
- He bought a single ticket out of nervousness.
- He either met this person right away and was driven somewhere, or if the Pizza Hut sighting is correct, he met him at a later predetermined time and predetermined place.
This case is so frustrating just because it should have been solved so easily. Even with the CCTV footage for a single camera opposite King's Cross and suddenly things would become a lot more clear. I feel horrendous for Andrew's family, because just thinking about that erased CCTV footage makes me feel uneasy, so for them, my god, I can't even imagine.
