shadowdancer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2013
- Messages
- 1,256
- Reaction score
- 1,129
No reason why it couldn't have been, I think.
UK UK - Andrew Gosden, 14, Doncaster, South Yorks, 14 Sept 2007
- Thread starter imamaze
- Start date
- Status
No reason why it couldn't have been, I think.
The only issue with it being Andrew in Leominster is the nature of the area. I agree the voice could easily be his, especially distorted through an intercom. However, Leominster is a small market town where it would be difficult for someone to remain without being noticed. I suppose he could have been in the surrounding area, but that is even trickier given how strangers stand out in villages. As I have said before, this case reminds me of the Ruth Wilson case from Dorking in 1996; a bright teenager who takes off and seems to disappear into thin air. In that case sightings were reported in the following year in Dorking (a similar size to Leominster) and, just as in this case, they came to nothing - I think because they must have been false given the size of the town. If I was LE in this case my question would be whether Andrew had made any connections anywhere near Leominster (perhaps on family holidays in the area) and to then look at those people linked. It seems to me more likely that the person at the station (if not a time waster) would be someone connected to Andrew.
http://www.herefordtimes.com/search/3931346.Caller_sought_in_Andrew_Gosden_case/
I have always wondered why it was thought to be a man. A voice that sounded like one? Could Andrew, at 14 have sounded like a man?
Well here is the answer. It was not anything that ultimately helped.
http://www.herefordtimes.com/news/3...ng_boy_information_finds_police_station_shut/
The man did contact police again about an anonymous sighting in Shrewsbury. He wrote annonymously to the BBC giving details.
That is information I didn't know before. Begs the question why he felt he had to stay annonymous, but felt a need to report.
If he went to the police station he was not at that point wanting to be annonymous. However, if you were reporting a missing person sighting wouldn't you wait till the police got to the station unless you were afraid of something?
I have followed the case from the start. In all this time I had never seen that the man contacted the BBC. I always wondered why he made no further contact and am rather relieved the man did. I do think this might have been a credible sighting. Why follow up with the BBC otherwise? Why be annonymous?
Even if it was not Andrew, I think this man thought it was and was sufficiently concerned to try to make a report, but was also afraid of something.
Thinking it through. He goes to the police and finds there is nobody there. If you were just someone trying to make mischief wouldn't you find another way to do it?
Just searched the digital spy forums and found a post that says that the man actually spoke to Andrew and tried informing several missing persons organisations with no luck. That would be odd given the publicity and his age.
It seems they said on the "The One Show" this person claims he spoke Andrew on the 24th Nov in the year he disappeared and even tried unsuccessfully to talk to some Missing Person organisations.
One point that is important to make. In the Uk if a child leaves home, then they can go to social services and be put in a home at that age nobody will make them return. I am not sure if the parents are always told where they are. I would think so, because of parental responsibility, but that still doesn't mean you can get the child back home if the child refuses to go. If the parents do need to be informed where the child is, then that would eliminate this possibility.
I think parents are told if the child reports abuse and is taken to a place of safety as there is a Child Protection investigation. We can rule that option out.
Perhaps we should start thinking where Andrew was not, rather than where he might be.
Andrew was not:
At School when he disappeared. He waited in a field, went home and changed his clothes. He put his school things in a washing machine, picked up his Play Station and went to Doncaster Station and got a train to Kings Cross.
Andrew had a clear intention to leave, didn't want to be in his school clothes, took a PS so knew he wanted to be occupied on a journey, Bought a ticket to London He didn't leave in a hurry, was not unprepared for his trip. It was not unplanned, but could have been a planned on that day on the way to school. I can see a scenario of an intelligent boy that age finally feeling he has had enough and cannot bear another day at school.,
Wherever he was the day he disappeared he was not penniless as he cleared his bank account.
Andrew was not in Doncaster, which rules out foul play by family members, There is a video footage of him arriving at Kings Cross. So far this is the action of someone who has a clear purpose in what they are doing.
Andrew is alone.
Not at School, and not at home and not in Doncaster.
He is not on a train after Kings Cross.
He is not on an overground train.
He may be on foot.
an underground train as the underground is right beside the main train station
On a bus.
The route Andrew took was not one that you make making an overground journey on a train.
Andrew was not recognised by anyone on public transport including buses and underground trains
Where do buses go from Kings Cross?
Where do underground trains go from Kings Cross?
Taxis are not an option financially and not taxi driver recognised him.
Possibility - Andrew was on foot once he left Kings Crosss and walked to his destination
It could have been a car.
Andrew was not hungry. He had money and there was a possible sighting of him in a cafe. If it is Andrew in a cafe, later and alone, then he has NOT yet met anyone. He has not found a place to stay. He is not in any distress. We could say Andrew was not in difficulty as such and such a time if we knew what the time was.
A lad playing truant would need to eat. Nobody has said they saw Andrew buying food the day he left home apart from the one sightng.
Possibility
Andrew was not buying food after this point. I think it could have been Andrew because a young lad eating alone might be more noticeable than not.
A
Where would that place Andrew? Can we build a timeline including the cafe sighting? I cannot find details of this anywhere. Would that then indicate a journey?
ld we say there is a possibility something happened to Andrew after that time and after reaching the cafe?
What was the cafe near? What kind of area was it?
At this point he is not dishevelled
Has his bag
Has his glasses
Is still alone.
Is not looking worried.
Is not returning via Kings Cross as he bought a single ticket.
Andrew cannot voluntarily leave the country
Did Andrew have a passport where is it? For the moment I assume he did not have a passport.
Andrew does not have the means to leave the country.
Andrew cannot be in Shrewsbury the day he left home
Where is Shrewsbury in relation to Kings Cross? You don't go to Shrewsbury from Doncaster via Kings Cross. Andrew did NOT go straight to Shrewsbury.
Andrew is not in contact
Andrew is not in contact with his family. He doesn't leave a note to say "don't worry."
There is no suicide note.
There is nothing missing that doesn't belong to Andrew
Andrew has not taken anything that indicates a long stay away.
Andrew has no phone
Andrew has no email
Andrew has no social media presence that is known
Andrew is a loner so had few friends
Andrew presumably is not happy when bullied at school
Andrew is not at loggerheads with his family-any of them.
Andrew is not uncared for or unloved
Andrew is not a Christian, but his parents are. There is no religious disagreement and his parents are tolerant.
Andrew is not carrying a phone
To the best of my knowledge he doesn't carry a mobile phone.
Andrew is not likely to find a safe place to stay overnight
Andrew is not old enough to find a safe hotel?
Andrew has enough money to survive for a short while, but NOT a long while.
Andrew is not old enough to work
Andrew is not old enough to work
Andrew has not used his social security number or his bank account since leaving (his parents put money into the account
Andrew is not without money and has a bank card.[/I]
Andrew has not made contact
Andrew has not rung home, used his bank card, tried to leave the country, turned up as a body, been found due to any sighting.
Made contact with a friend, his Mum, Dad, Sister, anyone at all.
Admitted to being Andrew unless to this unidentified person who says they spoke to him.
Andrew is not in the River Thames (this was dredged.)
Andrews belongings have not turned up
His play station has not turned up.
His bag has not turned up.
His clothing has not turned up.
His bank account has not been used.
Andrew was not mentally ill.
Andrew was not old or large enough for people not to notice him, but he was not carrying anything that would mark him out as travelling. He would not be noticeable because he is a boy with a bag going somewhere, not a boy with luggage who you might wonder about.
There has not been a confirmed sighting
There have been about 122 supposed sightings of a boy who is not unrecognisable because of his ear.
It would be hard to go all these years and not want to make contact unless something dreadful had happened at home. I do not think that anythng dreadful happened at home.
The police do not think Andrew is alive.
If you wanted to go missing would you not try and wear an indistinctiveT shirt?
Wouldn't a clever boy like Andrew avoid CCTV though I cannot think how. If he didn't want to be found, why wear a Slipknot T shirt and why not try to avoid CCTV? (Or does it occur to Andrew to do so after this point?)
Andrew is not caught on CCTV
The trouble is that police delayed searching it till most CCTV footage would have been destroyed. It gets deleted after about two weeks.
I am beginning to think that Andrew is not alive...I hope he is.
(I have to stop and get ready to go out, but I just wanted to think round the whole thing again. I pray a lot for this boy to be found. He looks so similar to my own son at that age and I skived school and went to London a lot in my youth.)
I have always wondered why it was thought to be a man. A voice that sounded like one? Could Andrew, at 14 have sounded like a man?
Well here is the answer. It was not anything that ultimately helped.
http://www.herefordtimes.com/news/3...ng_boy_information_finds_police_station_shut/
The man did contact police again about an anonymous sighting in Shrewsbury. He wrote annonymously to the BBC giving details.
That is information I didn't know before. Begs the question why he felt he had to stay annonymous, but felt a need to report.
If he went to the police station he was not at that point wanting to be annonymous. However, if you were reporting a missing person sighting wouldn't you wait till the police got to the station unless you were afraid of something?
I have followed the case from the start. In all this time I had never seen that the man contacted the BBC. I always wondered why he made no further contact and am rather relieved the man did. I do think this might have been a credible sighting. Why follow up with the BBC otherwise? Why be annonymous?
Even if it was not Andrew, I think this man thought it was and was sufficiently concerned to try to make a report, but was also afraid of something.
Thinking it through. He goes to the police and finds there is nobody there. If you were just someone trying to make mischief wouldn't you find another way to do it?
Just searched the digital spy forums and found a post that says that the man actually spoke to Andrew and tried informing several missing persons organisations with no luck. That would be odd given the publicity and his age.
It seems they said on the "The One Show" this person claims he spoke Andrew on the 24th Nov in the year he disappeared and even tried unsuccessfully to talk to some Missing Person organisations.
One point that is important to make. In the Uk if a child leaves home, then they can go to social services and be put in a home at that age nobody will make them return. I am not sure if the parents are always told where they are. I would think so, because of parental responsibility, but that still doesn't mean you can get the child back home if the child refuses to go. If the parents do need to be informed where the child is, then that would eliminate this possibility.
I think parents are told if the child reports abuse and is taken to a place of safety as there is a Child Protection investigation. We can rule that option out.
Perhaps we should start thinking where Andrew was not, rather than where he might be.
Andrew was not:
At School when he disappeared. He waited in a field, went home and changed his clothes. He put his school things in a washing machine, picked up his Play Station and went to Doncaster Station and got a train to Kings Cross.
Andrew had a clear intention to leave, didn't want to be in his school clothes, took a PS so knew he wanted to be occupied on a journey, Bought a ticket to London He didn't leave in a hurry, was not unprepared for his trip. It was not unplanned, but could have been a planned on that day on the way to school. I can see a scenario of an intelligent boy that age finally feeling he has had enough and cannot bear another day at school.,
Wherever he was the day he disappeared he was not penniless as he cleared his bank account.
Andrew was not in Doncaster, which rules out foul play by family members, There is a video footage of him arriving at Kings Cross. So far this is the action of someone who has a clear purpose in what they are doing.
Andrew is alone.
Not at School, and not at home and not in Doncaster.
He is not on a train after Kings Cross.
He is not on an overground train.
He may be on foot.
an underground train as the underground is right beside the main train station
On a bus.
The route Andrew took was not one that you make making an overground journey on a train.
Andrew was not recognised by anyone on public transport including buses and underground trains
Where do buses go from Kings Cross?
Where do underground trains go from Kings Cross?
Taxis are not an option financially and not taxi driver recognised him.
Possibility - Andrew was on foot once he left Kings Crosss and walked to his destination
It could have been a car.
Andrew was not hungry. He had money and there was a possible sighting of him in a cafe. If it is Andrew in a cafe, later and alone, then he has NOT yet met anyone. He has not found a place to stay. He is not in any distress. We could say Andrew was not in difficulty as such and such a time if we knew what the time was.
A lad playing truant would need to eat. Nobody has said they saw Andrew buying food the day he left home apart from the one sightng.
Possibility
Andrew was not buying food after this point. I think it could have been Andrew because a young lad eating alone might be more noticeable than not.
A
Where would that place Andrew? Can we build a timeline including the cafe sighting? I cannot find details of this anywhere. Would that then indicate a journey?
ld we say there is a possibility something happened to Andrew after that time and after reaching the cafe?
What was the cafe near? What kind of area was it?
At this point he is not dishevelled
Has his bag
Has his glasses
Is still alone.
Is not looking worried.
Is not returning via Kings Cross as he bought a single ticket.
Andrew cannot voluntarily leave the country
Did Andrew have a passport where is it? For the moment I assume he did not have a passport.
Andrew does not have the means to leave the country.
Andrew cannot be in Shrewsbury the day he left home
Where is Shrewsbury in relation to Kings Cross? You don't go to Shrewsbury from Doncaster via Kings Cross. Andrew did NOT go straight to Shrewsbury.
Andrew is not in contact
Andrew is not in contact with his family. He doesn't leave a note to say "don't worry."
There is no suicide note.
There is nothing missing that doesn't belong to Andrew
Andrew has not taken anything that indicates a long stay away.
Andrew has no phone
Andrew has no email
Andrew has no social media presence that is known
Andrew is a loner so had few friends
Andrew presumably is not happy when bullied at school
Andrew is not at loggerheads with his family-any of them.
Andrew is not uncared for or unloved
Andrew is not a Christian, but his parents are. There is no religious disagreement and his parents are tolerant.
Andrew is not carrying a phone
To the best of my knowledge he doesn't carry a mobile phone.
Andrew is not likely to find a safe place to stay overnight
Andrew is not old enough to find a safe hotel?
Andrew has enough money to survive for a short while, but NOT a long while.
Andrew is not old enough to work
Andrew is not old enough to work
Andrew has not used his social security number or his bank account since leaving (his parents put money into the account
Andrew is not without money and has a bank card.[/I]
Andrew has not made contact
Andrew has not rung home, used his bank card, tried to leave the country, turned up as a body, been found due to any sighting.
Made contact with a friend, his Mum, Dad, Sister, anyone at all.
Admitted to being Andrew unless to this unidentified person who says they spoke to him.
Andrew is not in the River Thames (this was dredged.)
Andrews belongings have not turned up
His play station has not turned up.
His bag has not turned up.
His clothing has not turned up.
His bank account has not been used.
Andrew was not mentally ill.
Andrew was not old or large enough for people not to notice him, but he was not carrying anything that would mark him out as travelling. He would not be noticeable because he is a boy with a bag going somewhere, not a boy with luggage who you might wonder about.
There has not been a confirmed sighting
There have been about 122 supposed sightings of a boy who is not unrecognisable because of his ear.
It would be hard to go all these years and not want to make contact unless something dreadful had happened at home. I do not think that anythng dreadful happened at home.
The police do not think Andrew is alive.
If you wanted to go missing would you not try and wear an indistinctiveT shirt?
Wouldn't a clever boy like Andrew avoid CCTV though I cannot think how. If he didn't want to be found, why wear a Slipknot T shirt and why not try to avoid CCTV? (Or does it occur to Andrew to do so after this point?)
Andrew is not caught on CCTV
The trouble is that police delayed searching it till most CCTV footage would have been destroyed. It gets deleted after about two weeks.
I am beginning to think that Andrew is not alive...I hope he is.
(I have to stop and get ready to go out, but I just wanted to think round the whole thing again. I pray a lot for this boy to be found. He looks so similar to my own son at that age and I skived school and went to London a lot in my youth.)
Responding to #223;
If Andrew did catch a tube train it is unlikely he would have been seen on CCTV. Whilst the underground has extensive CCTV the default retention period for CCTV on trains is only 72 hours, meaning it would probably have been wiped before a police request. I do not know why it is kept for such a short time as the default time for station CCTV is 14 days.
If he caught a bus it could be to anywhere in London. Kings Cross is a hub with many buses passing nearby. However, it seems unlikely he headed to Victoria bus station (the main hub for coaches out of London) as they keep CCTV for 28 days.
If he was on foot in the local area there are some less than attractive places nearby (Caledonian Road, Somers Town) which have seen high crime levels including violent crime. There are some places I would hesitate to go near, especially after dark. However, if he fell victim to a random attack in these areas it is surprising no body turned up and I would certainly expect his property to reappear.
I can think of no link involving Doncaster, London and Shrewsbury. Shrewsbury is a nice town not far from the North Wales border which you would reach via Stockport/Manchester from Doncaster. However, from London you would travel from Euston, a main station 0.5 miles from Kings Cross. Given the report and the likely retention of station CCTV for 30 days I would assume police checked to see if he travelled on via Euston (or later, by coach, from Victoria).
If Andrew did catch a tube train it is unlikely he would have been seen on CCTV. Whilst the underground has extensive CCTV the default retention period for CCTV on trains is only 72 hours, meaning it would probably have been wiped before a police request. I do not know why it is kept for such a short time as the default time for station CCTV is 14 days.
If he caught a bus it could be to anywhere in London. Kings Cross is a hub with many buses passing nearby. However, it seems unlikely he headed to Victoria bus station (the main hub for coaches out of London) as they keep CCTV for 28 days.
If he was on foot in the local area there are some less than attractive places nearby (Caledonian Road, Somers Town) which have seen high crime levels including violent crime. There are some places I would hesitate to go near, especially after dark. However, if he fell victim to a random attack in these areas it is surprising no body turned up and I would certainly expect his property to reappear.
I can think of no link involving Doncaster, London and Shrewsbury. Shrewsbury is a nice town not far from the North Wales border which you would reach via Stockport/Manchester from Doncaster. However, from London you would travel from Euston, a main station 0.5 miles from Kings Cross. Given the report and the likely retention of station CCTV for 30 days I would assume police checked to see if he travelled on via Euston (or later, by coach, from Victoria).
CCTV Footage
Thanks. I think that police delayed looking at any footage and this is why we don't have it. My impression is they focused on family before they looked at any possibility of foul play or abduction.
For church stuff I have been to Somers Town a bit, and it is not a great area at all. One thing that has occurred to me is that the British Library is on the way from Kings Cross to Somers Town and Andrew was a pretty intelligent boy. It is unlikely a young boy could just walk in and read though.
(Going to London to read in the British Library would have been something I would have considered at the same age and I did skive school and go to London a lot though usually I went to art galleries. There were no sightings of Andrew in an art gallery or a museum. However, in that environment you are not so visible because you could be with a school party. Parks, Piccadily Circus, Trafalgar Square and Carnaby Street were also places that I went to. Nobody ever asked why I was anywhere during school hours. Bookshops are another option and there are a fair few bookshops in that area now, but I don't know how long they have been there. I used to walk for miles and still turn up back home in Croydon in time for tea. For Andrew, places that sold Play Station stuff might be another draw or music shops. t is very easy to keep occupied and hide in London and also to meet strangers. )
Andrew was probably not at Mcdonalds
After a journey, Andrew might have wanted a drink and something to eat. Most kids would head for the Mcdonalds to the left of the station, but I don't know if Andrew was a Mcdonald's fan. Checking the Mcdonald's CTV would have been a good idea. It is so frustrating that this may not have been done. Looking at the way Andrew ends up facing in the video I don't think so because he would go left towards that.
Andrew was probably not on the Underground
Thinking about the underground. If I see a fairly young lad travelling alone on the underground then I wonder why, especially during school hours. Most of our underground trains are pretty full whatever time of day you use them and there are huge escalators.
To travel on the underground you would have to get a ticket. You cannot go through the barrier without it and there are guards at the barriers.
I don't think Andrew was ever on the underground because he would be potentially noticeable at a ticket machine, the barrier, on the escalator or platform, on the underground train.
Posters were put up and flyers given out by the family by the underground. I think that had Andrew been on the underground there would have been a sighting. That leaves on foot or by bus
The Cafe sighting if it was one
.I just wish I could find a link to the sighting in the cafe. I KNOW that was in the news early on.
The reason I think that the sighting might be Andrew and at that point Andrew safe and alone is that it is unusual to have a young lad alone like that eating in a cafe at that time of day. If Andrew did not take food from his home he would have needed to get some at some point. Knowing where the place he was posssibly sighted eating would give a possible timeline and also a possible direction where Andrew was heading. (If he wasn't abducted and didn't meet with foul play at Kings Cross.)
On a bus
Again, it is rare to be the only person on a bus. The possibility of a sighting is higher than a boy walking because you might remember sitting near a lone young lad on a bus?
Theory
Andrew leaves Kings Cross and goes to the cafe. Something happens to Andrew after this point.
Theory
Andrew leaves Kings Cross in a vehichle that is not a bus or an underground train or an overground train.
In the video Andrew is turning slightly to the right as he leaves Kings Cross. If he was heading to Euston he would turn to the left.
He begins to the left, straightens up so is looking forward and then goes to the right. That would be the British Library and Somers town direction an also towards Euston which would be slightly behind down the road on the left. There is also a taxi rank in that road.
It looks to me as if Andrew walks out of the station and is initially going to go left then changes his mind to go right.
Theory
Andrew walked towards the British Library
Theory
Andrew went to the left of the station down the road with the underground, bus stops and taxi rank at that point on foot.
Theory
The only other possibilites is a pick up by a car. Or meeting someone and continuing on foot. (Except that a boy with an adult on any form of transport would be unremarkable unless as in the case of Martin Allen, the adult was doing something that drew you to the attention of the boy.)
Looking at how Andrew looks, If you are looking for someone what do you do? You look from one side to the other. Andrew is looking left, front and right. Whether or not it is Andrew alone later, Andrew is meeting someone and looking for them as he leaves the station.
What there isn't
There is no body, no contact, no CCTV, no sighting at Kings Cross. Andrew doesn't have much luggage. The LEAST noticeable thing at Kings Cross would be a lad met by someone in a car because it is a station and there is an adult in the car. You would just walk on by and not take any notice because the boy is not alone, has a reason to be out of school (because they are with an adult.) and looks safe. It is just someone picking a boy up.
A person on foot would be near the station, there would be a recognition on Andrew's face if he had seen the person, but this might not be obvious if he is looking for a car.
Andrew would be noticeable if waiting for a friend outside because he is not yet in a "legitimate" setting. People noticed a lone boy on a train. The ticket attendant at Doncaster remembered Andrew and was concerned. Andrew, on public transport, stands out.
This might sound bonkers, but if you followed Andrew's steps from the station by making a sort of trajectory from the doors of the station, would you end up at where people get picked up before you ended up on the road with the British Library in it?
Potential timeline 1
Andrew is at Kings Cross at 11.30 and turns right and gets into a car at ...
Potential timeline 2
Andrew leaves Kings Cross station and turns right at 11.30 and walks towards.....
Sorry this is again a mix of ideas. I just want Andrew to get found so much. I even wonder if he fell down a manhole or a sewer.
Thanks. I think that police delayed looking at any footage and this is why we don't have it. My impression is they focused on family before they looked at any possibility of foul play or abduction.
For church stuff I have been to Somers Town a bit, and it is not a great area at all. One thing that has occurred to me is that the British Library is on the way from Kings Cross to Somers Town and Andrew was a pretty intelligent boy. It is unlikely a young boy could just walk in and read though.
(Going to London to read in the British Library would have been something I would have considered at the same age and I did skive school and go to London a lot though usually I went to art galleries. There were no sightings of Andrew in an art gallery or a museum. However, in that environment you are not so visible because you could be with a school party. Parks, Piccadily Circus, Trafalgar Square and Carnaby Street were also places that I went to. Nobody ever asked why I was anywhere during school hours. Bookshops are another option and there are a fair few bookshops in that area now, but I don't know how long they have been there. I used to walk for miles and still turn up back home in Croydon in time for tea. For Andrew, places that sold Play Station stuff might be another draw or music shops. t is very easy to keep occupied and hide in London and also to meet strangers. )
Andrew was probably not at Mcdonalds
After a journey, Andrew might have wanted a drink and something to eat. Most kids would head for the Mcdonalds to the left of the station, but I don't know if Andrew was a Mcdonald's fan. Checking the Mcdonald's CTV would have been a good idea. It is so frustrating that this may not have been done. Looking at the way Andrew ends up facing in the video I don't think so because he would go left towards that.
Andrew was probably not on the Underground
Thinking about the underground. If I see a fairly young lad travelling alone on the underground then I wonder why, especially during school hours. Most of our underground trains are pretty full whatever time of day you use them and there are huge escalators.
To travel on the underground you would have to get a ticket. You cannot go through the barrier without it and there are guards at the barriers.
I don't think Andrew was ever on the underground because he would be potentially noticeable at a ticket machine, the barrier, on the escalator or platform, on the underground train.
Posters were put up and flyers given out by the family by the underground. I think that had Andrew been on the underground there would have been a sighting. That leaves on foot or by bus
The Cafe sighting if it was one
.I just wish I could find a link to the sighting in the cafe. I KNOW that was in the news early on.
The reason I think that the sighting might be Andrew and at that point Andrew safe and alone is that it is unusual to have a young lad alone like that eating in a cafe at that time of day. If Andrew did not take food from his home he would have needed to get some at some point. Knowing where the place he was posssibly sighted eating would give a possible timeline and also a possible direction where Andrew was heading. (If he wasn't abducted and didn't meet with foul play at Kings Cross.)
On a bus
Again, it is rare to be the only person on a bus. The possibility of a sighting is higher than a boy walking because you might remember sitting near a lone young lad on a bus?
Theory
Andrew leaves Kings Cross and goes to the cafe. Something happens to Andrew after this point.
Theory
Andrew leaves Kings Cross in a vehichle that is not a bus or an underground train or an overground train.
In the video Andrew is turning slightly to the right as he leaves Kings Cross. If he was heading to Euston he would turn to the left.
He begins to the left, straightens up so is looking forward and then goes to the right. That would be the British Library and Somers town direction an also towards Euston which would be slightly behind down the road on the left. There is also a taxi rank in that road.
It looks to me as if Andrew walks out of the station and is initially going to go left then changes his mind to go right.
Theory
Andrew walked towards the British Library
Theory
Andrew went to the left of the station down the road with the underground, bus stops and taxi rank at that point on foot.
Theory
The only other possibilites is a pick up by a car. Or meeting someone and continuing on foot. (Except that a boy with an adult on any form of transport would be unremarkable unless as in the case of Martin Allen, the adult was doing something that drew you to the attention of the boy.)
Looking at how Andrew looks, If you are looking for someone what do you do? You look from one side to the other. Andrew is looking left, front and right. Whether or not it is Andrew alone later, Andrew is meeting someone and looking for them as he leaves the station.
What there isn't
There is no body, no contact, no CCTV, no sighting at Kings Cross. Andrew doesn't have much luggage. The LEAST noticeable thing at Kings Cross would be a lad met by someone in a car because it is a station and there is an adult in the car. You would just walk on by and not take any notice because the boy is not alone, has a reason to be out of school (because they are with an adult.) and looks safe. It is just someone picking a boy up.
A person on foot would be near the station, there would be a recognition on Andrew's face if he had seen the person, but this might not be obvious if he is looking for a car.
Andrew would be noticeable if waiting for a friend outside because he is not yet in a "legitimate" setting. People noticed a lone boy on a train. The ticket attendant at Doncaster remembered Andrew and was concerned. Andrew, on public transport, stands out.
This might sound bonkers, but if you followed Andrew's steps from the station by making a sort of trajectory from the doors of the station, would you end up at where people get picked up before you ended up on the road with the British Library in it?
Potential timeline 1
Andrew is at Kings Cross at 11.30 and turns right and gets into a car at ...
Potential timeline 2
Andrew leaves Kings Cross station and turns right at 11.30 and walks towards.....
Sorry this is again a mix of ideas. I just want Andrew to get found so much. I even wonder if he fell down a manhole or a sewer.
hayaletcatcher
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2013
- Messages
- 644
- Reaction score
- 373
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07mdkb3
Andrews dad has posted that Andrew will be featured on this show on Monday.
Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk
Andrews dad has posted that Andrew will be featured on this show on Monday.
Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk
AliceInPain
Just taking a break ...
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,907
- Reaction score
- 10,787
Originally Posted by knowthings View Post
I have always believed that a family member living in London was involved in his disappearance.
I would love to hear more about this too.
AliceInPain
Just taking a break ...
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,907
- Reaction score
- 10,787
There is nowhere this boy could have gone except a bad place.
I lived in Camden and very shortly in Kings Cross area, I'll let my son know.
I lived in Camden and very shortly in Kings Cross area, I'll let my son know.
samwilzrhcp
Member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2015
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction score
- 64
The more i think about it the more i think his family down south are involved somehow, or at least know something.
All these theories about him going to meet someone, well how? He wasn't active online, definitely not on his PSP, and the police found no trace of such at home.
He obviously went to London for a reason, but what that reason is is unknown.
All these theories about him going to meet someone, well how? He wasn't active online, definitely not on his PSP, and the police found no trace of such at home.
He obviously went to London for a reason, but what that reason is is unknown.
jaycool
Member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2014
- Messages
- 42
- Reaction score
- 102
Hi all. This is one of the few cases i have followed on/off on websleuths, thought I would pop in and leave some things that sprung to my mind.
The idea i got about Andrew is that he was quite fascinated with the idea of going to London so i think it would be pointless for him to go there without seeing the sites unless he was looking to stay somewhere with someone.
You would think there may be CCTV footage or eye witness of him going to some of the places in London, certain hot spots like the British Library,London Eye,Big Ben etc.
Him walking around many people surely would have meant being seen that day in London unless he chose a route that allowed him not to be seen.
Then again perhaps people did see Andrew that day but simply did not see/hear of his disappearance through social media so never thought to bring word of it forward.
I have thought it odd that Andrew did not get a return train ticket, to me that implies he intended on: 1) never returning 2) returning at some point but in the far future (possibly through another means of travel).
I think all we have at this point is working out the possibilities and likelihoods. I think he possibly got in a taxi or walked to his next destination; perhaps to a hotel/house, not necessarily someone picking him up in car from station.
It would be interesting to know how far away the cafe was from Kings Cross station mentioned earlier in the thread, It would also be interesting to know how much time was between getting off the train and being seated at the cafe.
My view is that if the cafe is near the station and he went there first then the likelihood is that he was waiting for someone. When you get to London would you really sit at a cafe when there are many other great things to do there?
Andrew had no where to stay in London, could you imagine a 14 year old trying to check himself into a hotel? It definitely would not happen and Andrew would be remembered by staff for doing so.
So it points to one or two things for me, Andrew has been sleeping rough on the streets or he went back to someone's place. But if he was sleeping rough surely people would notice him, maybe not.
There is no way though that he would have avoided contact with people if he wished to survive, at some point he would of ran out of money and needed help; needed warmth,shelter,food,direction etc.
Its also possible he stayed at a hotel but with an adult who paid for a room, thats another idea i had, this would mean someone willing to take care of him, however i think it is much more simpler than that.
Though i find it much easier to believe he met someone down there and that it was pre-planned it may be there was no agreement to meet someone there, what i mean is that Andrew may have talked to someone online previously who gave their house address and Andrew took it upon himself to go visit that place? Or visit that person in their work place? Then went back to their place?
This person may have said something along the lines of "if you ever run into trouble you can come to so and so place and stay with me". This could be why there appeared to be no plan, it appeared spontaneous because the person who met him in London didn't expect to meet him until Andrew unexpectedly turned up? We still dont really know whether he had some other secret method of contact to perhaps contact this person. i.e a second mobile cell phone.
Is possible he did meet with foul play. There are dangerous places in London but i refuse to believe that if Andrew met with foul play on the first day it was because of someone he had not spoken to before, this would have been someone he knew in my opinion. I think one argument for foul play is a refusal to believe Andrew would hide purposely and intentionally let his family worry about his whereabouts like this.
Its possible Andrew really wanted to live a new lifestyle of "run away and avoid detection", of course i find it difficult to believe he was that smart to avoid all detection, surely at some point someone would recognize him, however if he did limit his contact with people then its not impossible for him to go so long without being found either.
The idea i got about Andrew is that he was quite fascinated with the idea of going to London so i think it would be pointless for him to go there without seeing the sites unless he was looking to stay somewhere with someone.
You would think there may be CCTV footage or eye witness of him going to some of the places in London, certain hot spots like the British Library,London Eye,Big Ben etc.
Him walking around many people surely would have meant being seen that day in London unless he chose a route that allowed him not to be seen.
Then again perhaps people did see Andrew that day but simply did not see/hear of his disappearance through social media so never thought to bring word of it forward.
I have thought it odd that Andrew did not get a return train ticket, to me that implies he intended on: 1) never returning 2) returning at some point but in the far future (possibly through another means of travel).
I think all we have at this point is working out the possibilities and likelihoods. I think he possibly got in a taxi or walked to his next destination; perhaps to a hotel/house, not necessarily someone picking him up in car from station.
It would be interesting to know how far away the cafe was from Kings Cross station mentioned earlier in the thread, It would also be interesting to know how much time was between getting off the train and being seated at the cafe.
My view is that if the cafe is near the station and he went there first then the likelihood is that he was waiting for someone. When you get to London would you really sit at a cafe when there are many other great things to do there?
Andrew had no where to stay in London, could you imagine a 14 year old trying to check himself into a hotel? It definitely would not happen and Andrew would be remembered by staff for doing so.
So it points to one or two things for me, Andrew has been sleeping rough on the streets or he went back to someone's place. But if he was sleeping rough surely people would notice him, maybe not.
There is no way though that he would have avoided contact with people if he wished to survive, at some point he would of ran out of money and needed help; needed warmth,shelter,food,direction etc.
Its also possible he stayed at a hotel but with an adult who paid for a room, thats another idea i had, this would mean someone willing to take care of him, however i think it is much more simpler than that.
Though i find it much easier to believe he met someone down there and that it was pre-planned it may be there was no agreement to meet someone there, what i mean is that Andrew may have talked to someone online previously who gave their house address and Andrew took it upon himself to go visit that place? Or visit that person in their work place? Then went back to their place?
This person may have said something along the lines of "if you ever run into trouble you can come to so and so place and stay with me". This could be why there appeared to be no plan, it appeared spontaneous because the person who met him in London didn't expect to meet him until Andrew unexpectedly turned up? We still dont really know whether he had some other secret method of contact to perhaps contact this person. i.e a second mobile cell phone.
Is possible he did meet with foul play. There are dangerous places in London but i refuse to believe that if Andrew met with foul play on the first day it was because of someone he had not spoken to before, this would have been someone he knew in my opinion. I think one argument for foul play is a refusal to believe Andrew would hide purposely and intentionally let his family worry about his whereabouts like this.
Its possible Andrew really wanted to live a new lifestyle of "run away and avoid detection", of course i find it difficult to believe he was that smart to avoid all detection, surely at some point someone would recognize him, however if he did limit his contact with people then its not impossible for him to go so long without being found either.
jaycool
Member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2014
- Messages
- 42
- Reaction score
- 102
Continued:
When you really think about it most people you meet in day to day life probably dont watch as much social media as we think they do, if i asked my family members if they had ever heard of this
Andrew lad who went missing they would tell me no and some of them watch a lot of TV. Andrew may unfortunately have simply met people (apart from the one man) who did not realize he was missing. Could that be possible?
All it takes is for Andrew to jump into a taxi with a driver who doesn't really pay attention to TV or other forms of social media and the taxi driver would have no clue Andrew was a missing person.
His belongings have never been found so you have to wonder if they are still with him wherever he is or hiding somewhere.
While Andrew could look totally different today I think Andrew has a very distinct face, I have never seen a person that looks like him so if i did see him somewhere i would definitely remember him.
This is possibly why the guy who reported seeing him who was from Leominster may be right, why he did not stick around to report that evening is strange though.
If he is still alive signs would point to him probably having help or being helped by someone to stay hidden while having enough money/resources to survive, at the same time all it takes is for him
to hang out with certain people who dont know he is a missing person and Andrew could live somewhere with this person/these people.
I struggle to find why anyone would be willing to take him in and help him get on with living expenses unless they offered Andrew work somewhere. The only other thought is that
he was abducted then murdered/held captive somewhere in the UK.
If Andrew has met with foul play then you can bet that it was someone who intended to meet him that day. If he had been murdered by street ****s or committed suicide
surely his body would have been found by now, i think Andrew went back to someone else's place, the idea that he might be staying with family is interesting but surely they would have all been checked.
If Andrew had taken this journey to get away from home he would have had realized himself at some point that the less contact he has with people the less likely he is to be found.
So if Andrew does not want to be discovered then he probably hasn't spent much time around people. That is the only way i believe he could have been "unseen" after all this time.
Hopefully some TV coverage of this case will get things rolling and someone will come forward recognizing him. I remember someone earlier in this thread (if i remember rightly) saying they
spoke to someone who might have seen him in London and thought it was him because of his ear, they may be right, perhaps he is just very crafty in moving around the country.
I can imagine someone changing their look completely just to avoid being detected but it still comes down to the question of how he would have his own place and be able to work without needing things such as his passport?
I hope Andrew was not lured by someone devious and is alive and well. If he is alive i would seriously wonder why he has been gone all these years without letting his family know hes ok and still out there.
That's all i have today. I will keep an eye out for updates may they arise.
When you really think about it most people you meet in day to day life probably dont watch as much social media as we think they do, if i asked my family members if they had ever heard of this
Andrew lad who went missing they would tell me no and some of them watch a lot of TV. Andrew may unfortunately have simply met people (apart from the one man) who did not realize he was missing. Could that be possible?
All it takes is for Andrew to jump into a taxi with a driver who doesn't really pay attention to TV or other forms of social media and the taxi driver would have no clue Andrew was a missing person.
His belongings have never been found so you have to wonder if they are still with him wherever he is or hiding somewhere.
While Andrew could look totally different today I think Andrew has a very distinct face, I have never seen a person that looks like him so if i did see him somewhere i would definitely remember him.
This is possibly why the guy who reported seeing him who was from Leominster may be right, why he did not stick around to report that evening is strange though.
If he is still alive signs would point to him probably having help or being helped by someone to stay hidden while having enough money/resources to survive, at the same time all it takes is for him
to hang out with certain people who dont know he is a missing person and Andrew could live somewhere with this person/these people.
I struggle to find why anyone would be willing to take him in and help him get on with living expenses unless they offered Andrew work somewhere. The only other thought is that
he was abducted then murdered/held captive somewhere in the UK.
If Andrew has met with foul play then you can bet that it was someone who intended to meet him that day. If he had been murdered by street ****s or committed suicide
surely his body would have been found by now, i think Andrew went back to someone else's place, the idea that he might be staying with family is interesting but surely they would have all been checked.
If Andrew had taken this journey to get away from home he would have had realized himself at some point that the less contact he has with people the less likely he is to be found.
So if Andrew does not want to be discovered then he probably hasn't spent much time around people. That is the only way i believe he could have been "unseen" after all this time.
Hopefully some TV coverage of this case will get things rolling and someone will come forward recognizing him. I remember someone earlier in this thread (if i remember rightly) saying they
spoke to someone who might have seen him in London and thought it was him because of his ear, they may be right, perhaps he is just very crafty in moving around the country.
I can imagine someone changing their look completely just to avoid being detected but it still comes down to the question of how he would have his own place and be able to work without needing things such as his passport?
I hope Andrew was not lured by someone devious and is alive and well. If he is alive i would seriously wonder why he has been gone all these years without letting his family know hes ok and still out there.
That's all i have today. I will keep an eye out for updates may they arise.
samwilzrhcp
Member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2015
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction score
- 64
With September 2017 next year being the tenth anniversary of Andrews disappearance, hopefully there is a mass appeal up and down the country VIA TV, Radio, Newspapers etc etc.
Hopefully then we found out what happened to Andrew.
Sent from my iPhone
Hopefully then we found out what happened to Andrew.
Sent from my iPhone
ekardh
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2014
- Messages
- 986
- Reaction score
- 2,682
First I've heard of that. Source?
I just signed up to have a chat on this thread.
Please accept my apologies as this post will probably be long! I've honestly spent the past few week reading every article I could find about Andrew. I hadn't heard of Andrew until I saw the BBC Panorama a few weeks back and for some reason his story has really touched me.
I think it's because his parents seem so lovely and his father bless him seems completely broken by this. Yet they're still so giving and are helping so many other families with missing loved ones, what fantastic people. It's just awful that they're going through this.
It's such an odd story. Not taking his charger or any clothes (not even a coat) or all the money at his disposal suggests to me that Andrew thought he would be back that day.
Yet he turned down the return ticket. Which suggests either he wasn't intending to return or (what I think is more likely) someone had said they would bring him home. But who? And he must have realised that getting a lift home would mean he would be home late (train is usually much quicker than car for long journeys isn't it?) so he'd have a lot of explaining to do to his parents. As would the stranger who drove their son home from London. I doubt he was stupid enough to believe they'd just accept and be okay with that? So I think he either planned to be back home before they got back from work (So why not take the return ticket?) Or he knew the person he was meeting and so did his parents. And he trusted that his parents would be okay with him spending time with this person.
I believe the most likely scenario is Andrew was groomed by someone claiming to be something they weren't. But I think it was someone he knew and his family know/knew.
There is zero evidence that he arranged to meet someone online. Those who suggest he was smart enough to wipe all his internet activity, there's several reasons why I don't believe that. He was a bright kid but he wasn't Walter O'Brian. To do that he would have first needed a VPN to hide his activity from the ISP (which would have immediately told them someone was wanting to hide their activity) then some software to properly and fully erase the data he wanted gone, but not the whole drive (IE boot & nook, overwrite with 0 as if the disk was new), not very easy to do. Plus, a family computer, zero internet data? The family would confirm they didn't wipe it, again pretty instant realisation that Andrew had wiped his activity. I'd like to think if he had wiped the data they would have made that public knowledge. 14 year old boy who's disappeared had professionally wiped his internet activity? That's pretty relevant to the case but not a detail to keep private in order to tell real leads from hoaxes etc.
Andrew's family have stated he didn't spend much time on the computer. You don't become *that* good with computers by 'not spending much time' on them.
If he was using his PSP the police would have been able to get the info from Sony's servers as Andrew wouldn't have been able to delete those. Plus there were very few wifi hotspots then and no wifi on the train. So he couldn't have chatted to whomever it was on his journey which means he was 100% confident that whoever he was meeting would be there.
The school computers would have had blocks left right and centre, there's no way he would have been able to chat to a stranger on those. That leaves the library computers (which I believe were also checked?) or it means it was arranged in real life and not online and by someone who Andrew trusted enough to act so completely out of character for.
In short, I do not believe Andrew met someone online and arranged to meet them that way.
Then there's the 'he ran away to start a new life' theory. As lovely as it would be it's extremely fanciful and just not plausible. He was 14, he looked younger. He couldn't have found a job or anywhere to stay or survived without money. He wasn't street smart and a young boy who's lived a sheltered life living rough in London would very quickly find themselves in a desperate situation. A few days with no food or shelter (he didn't even take a coat) would very soon make him rethink. He had his bank card. So had money at his disposal (I think. Some sites say he withdrew £200 some say he emptied his bank account). I can't believe that he wouldn't at some point have used his bank card or realised his mistake and contacted his parents.
Unless he had help, which takes us back to the question of help from whom? Add that to the fact that Andrew's parents seem like lovely people. He had a great home life and I can see no reason why he'd find living rough in London preferable to being at home (again, unless he's been helped by someone). Plus we've no reason to think he would be so callous as to put his parents through the hell they currently deal with on a daily basis.
There's so many reasons Andrew could have gone to London (just in this thread there's everything from buying a game to a band signing mentioned) but we've no reason to believe that if he'd have asked them, Andrew's parents wouldn't have taken him to London for those things. Like they had taken him there previously to visit museums and go to concerts. And if that had been the case then it stands to reason he would have at least asked them before deciding to run off there himself. Which his parents would surely have mentioned right away given that it would have been a massive coincidence for him to ask about London, be told no then him run away to London.
As I said at the start of this post I've read every article I can find about Andrew since I saw the Panorama episode and I genuinely believe Andrew met someone in real life who lured him to London. I believe that whoever has done this to Andrew is someone the family know (or knew). Maybe he was being bullied and didn't want to tell his parents (as a lot of teens don't) and this person offered some support. Maybe he was struggling with his sexuality and this person offered support. Maybe it's a simple as a shared taste in music/favourite game etc and they gained his confidence that way.
I just feel that Andrew wouldn't have gone of his own accord and with there being no evidence he met someone online then the only logical explanation is him meeting someone in real life who he trusted to look after him and get him home safely. And for this person to be able to explain the London adventure (or just explain why he was out with them and not at home) to his parents without them going crazy (which any good parent would do if there young teenager was out with a strange adult). Which suggests to me that whoever it was, they weren't a stranger to the Gosden family.
I also think the police have been astoundingly bad in their handling of the case. Within 48 hours they knew where Andrew had gone, what train he got what time he left, what time he arrived in London and on what platform. And they didn't ask for the CCTV for three weeks? Astounding! All it would have taken was a call/text/fax/email asking the local businesses and stations etc to under no circumstances erase the CCTV from the day Andrew arrived in London. I imagine Andrew's family would have at least some answers now if the police hadn't been so inept. Also failing to put him on the Interpol system (his parents found out a year after they were told he would be placed on the system that he hadn't been and the had to lodge a formal complaint to make it happen) the police have wasted so much time here and left so many stones unturned that I can't help but believe this case would have had a totally different outcome were it not for their repeated failings.
Also, I found this super creepy video on YouTube which claims to have been made with the consent of Andrew's family and made using their version of events. I take that with a massive pinch of salt. But can anyone confirm or deny it? It makes a lot of claims, that Andrew was confirmed as seen in the Oxford road Pizza Hut. That he was confirmed seen in Covent Garden and that he planned the trip two weeks in advance. I don't believe it to be genuine because if it was surely it would have had more exposure. But it sickens me that some random has made it and claims it was made with the help and consent of Andrew's parents.
The music is creepy AF too but whoever made it obviously spent a lot of time in London retracing what they think to be Andrew's steps.
Link here
https://youtu.be/IobppLurNU0
Apologies for the super long post. I've just read so much about Andrew this week I had a lot to say!
I truly hope that Andrew's parents get some answers sooner rather than later. They seem like lovely people and really don't deserve this at all.
Please accept my apologies as this post will probably be long! I've honestly spent the past few week reading every article I could find about Andrew. I hadn't heard of Andrew until I saw the BBC Panorama a few weeks back and for some reason his story has really touched me.
I think it's because his parents seem so lovely and his father bless him seems completely broken by this. Yet they're still so giving and are helping so many other families with missing loved ones, what fantastic people. It's just awful that they're going through this.
It's such an odd story. Not taking his charger or any clothes (not even a coat) or all the money at his disposal suggests to me that Andrew thought he would be back that day.
Yet he turned down the return ticket. Which suggests either he wasn't intending to return or (what I think is more likely) someone had said they would bring him home. But who? And he must have realised that getting a lift home would mean he would be home late (train is usually much quicker than car for long journeys isn't it?) so he'd have a lot of explaining to do to his parents. As would the stranger who drove their son home from London. I doubt he was stupid enough to believe they'd just accept and be okay with that? So I think he either planned to be back home before they got back from work (So why not take the return ticket?) Or he knew the person he was meeting and so did his parents. And he trusted that his parents would be okay with him spending time with this person.
I believe the most likely scenario is Andrew was groomed by someone claiming to be something they weren't. But I think it was someone he knew and his family know/knew.
There is zero evidence that he arranged to meet someone online. Those who suggest he was smart enough to wipe all his internet activity, there's several reasons why I don't believe that. He was a bright kid but he wasn't Walter O'Brian. To do that he would have first needed a VPN to hide his activity from the ISP (which would have immediately told them someone was wanting to hide their activity) then some software to properly and fully erase the data he wanted gone, but not the whole drive (IE boot & nook, overwrite with 0 as if the disk was new), not very easy to do. Plus, a family computer, zero internet data? The family would confirm they didn't wipe it, again pretty instant realisation that Andrew had wiped his activity. I'd like to think if he had wiped the data they would have made that public knowledge. 14 year old boy who's disappeared had professionally wiped his internet activity? That's pretty relevant to the case but not a detail to keep private in order to tell real leads from hoaxes etc.
Andrew's family have stated he didn't spend much time on the computer. You don't become *that* good with computers by 'not spending much time' on them.
If he was using his PSP the police would have been able to get the info from Sony's servers as Andrew wouldn't have been able to delete those. Plus there were very few wifi hotspots then and no wifi on the train. So he couldn't have chatted to whomever it was on his journey which means he was 100% confident that whoever he was meeting would be there.
The school computers would have had blocks left right and centre, there's no way he would have been able to chat to a stranger on those. That leaves the library computers (which I believe were also checked?) or it means it was arranged in real life and not online and by someone who Andrew trusted enough to act so completely out of character for.
In short, I do not believe Andrew met someone online and arranged to meet them that way.
Then there's the 'he ran away to start a new life' theory. As lovely as it would be it's extremely fanciful and just not plausible. He was 14, he looked younger. He couldn't have found a job or anywhere to stay or survived without money. He wasn't street smart and a young boy who's lived a sheltered life living rough in London would very quickly find themselves in a desperate situation. A few days with no food or shelter (he didn't even take a coat) would very soon make him rethink. He had his bank card. So had money at his disposal (I think. Some sites say he withdrew £200 some say he emptied his bank account). I can't believe that he wouldn't at some point have used his bank card or realised his mistake and contacted his parents.
Unless he had help, which takes us back to the question of help from whom? Add that to the fact that Andrew's parents seem like lovely people. He had a great home life and I can see no reason why he'd find living rough in London preferable to being at home (again, unless he's been helped by someone). Plus we've no reason to think he would be so callous as to put his parents through the hell they currently deal with on a daily basis.
There's so many reasons Andrew could have gone to London (just in this thread there's everything from buying a game to a band signing mentioned) but we've no reason to believe that if he'd have asked them, Andrew's parents wouldn't have taken him to London for those things. Like they had taken him there previously to visit museums and go to concerts. And if that had been the case then it stands to reason he would have at least asked them before deciding to run off there himself. Which his parents would surely have mentioned right away given that it would have been a massive coincidence for him to ask about London, be told no then him run away to London.
As I said at the start of this post I've read every article I can find about Andrew since I saw the Panorama episode and I genuinely believe Andrew met someone in real life who lured him to London. I believe that whoever has done this to Andrew is someone the family know (or knew). Maybe he was being bullied and didn't want to tell his parents (as a lot of teens don't) and this person offered some support. Maybe he was struggling with his sexuality and this person offered support. Maybe it's a simple as a shared taste in music/favourite game etc and they gained his confidence that way.
I just feel that Andrew wouldn't have gone of his own accord and with there being no evidence he met someone online then the only logical explanation is him meeting someone in real life who he trusted to look after him and get him home safely. And for this person to be able to explain the London adventure (or just explain why he was out with them and not at home) to his parents without them going crazy (which any good parent would do if there young teenager was out with a strange adult). Which suggests to me that whoever it was, they weren't a stranger to the Gosden family.
I also think the police have been astoundingly bad in their handling of the case. Within 48 hours they knew where Andrew had gone, what train he got what time he left, what time he arrived in London and on what platform. And they didn't ask for the CCTV for three weeks? Astounding! All it would have taken was a call/text/fax/email asking the local businesses and stations etc to under no circumstances erase the CCTV from the day Andrew arrived in London. I imagine Andrew's family would have at least some answers now if the police hadn't been so inept. Also failing to put him on the Interpol system (his parents found out a year after they were told he would be placed on the system that he hadn't been and the had to lodge a formal complaint to make it happen) the police have wasted so much time here and left so many stones unturned that I can't help but believe this case would have had a totally different outcome were it not for their repeated failings.
Also, I found this super creepy video on YouTube which claims to have been made with the consent of Andrew's family and made using their version of events. I take that with a massive pinch of salt. But can anyone confirm or deny it? It makes a lot of claims, that Andrew was confirmed as seen in the Oxford road Pizza Hut. That he was confirmed seen in Covent Garden and that he planned the trip two weeks in advance. I don't believe it to be genuine because if it was surely it would have had more exposure. But it sickens me that some random has made it and claims it was made with the help and consent of Andrew's parents.
The music is creepy AF too but whoever made it obviously spent a lot of time in London retracing what they think to be Andrew's steps.
Link here
https://youtu.be/IobppLurNU0
Apologies for the super long post. I've just read so much about Andrew this week I had a lot to say!
I truly hope that Andrew's parents get some answers sooner rather than later. They seem like lovely people and really don't deserve this at all.
CoverMeCagney
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2013
- Messages
- 13,365
- Reaction score
- 64,567
Great first post, Farley, and welcome!!
I agree with much of what you have said, it all makes the most sense. He would have taken all his savings money (left in his room) if he was running away, so with that and the one way ticket the clues suggest he was planning to come back soon. I agree someone he trusted has enticed him down there and I wouldn't be surprised if it was planned 2 weeks in advance.
So was he sold / drugged / exploited for some nefarious purpose?
Did the other person try it on with him and there was a fight in which Andrew died?
It seems unlikely he's alive and well, sadly. Thanks for looking into this case, every now and then we need a good refresh!!
PS see my sig link below for other UK cases.
I agree with much of what you have said, it all makes the most sense. He would have taken all his savings money (left in his room) if he was running away, so with that and the one way ticket the clues suggest he was planning to come back soon. I agree someone he trusted has enticed him down there and I wouldn't be surprised if it was planned 2 weeks in advance.
So was he sold / drugged / exploited for some nefarious purpose?
Did the other person try it on with him and there was a fight in which Andrew died?
It seems unlikely he's alive and well, sadly. Thanks for looking into this case, every now and then we need a good refresh!!
PS see my sig link below for other UK cases.
- Status