Just want to point out that in 2007 there was a study done by researchers at a British university where they interviewed teenagers who were a part of the NAGTY program (the gifted education program that Andrew was a part of) about their taste in music. It focused specifically on kids who liked metal music.
School of rock . . . gifted teens use heavy metal to cope with stress
According to the research paper itself, which is also available online, researchers conducted the interviews using “NAGTY’s internet chat forums, a virtual space where registered members of NAGTY are able to discuss a variety of academic and social topics. Only registered NAGTY members can log-in and leave messages in the forum…”
The thread on the forums had an intro from the researcher who invited participants to ‘chat to me and among yourselves on this thread’.
Participants were aged between 11-19.
It’s an interesting coincidence that the topic of this study was metal music. I’m not however implying that Andrew was a participant in this study or even in the NAGTY forums, but just pointing out that members of the program had access to the forums and they were a place to chat and socialise with others in the program (and that some adults associated with the program had access too).
I think this is a really interesting find, but I’m struggling to see it as anything more than contextual unless there’s something else to anchor it.
A couple of points that make me cautious:
First, those NAGTY forums were closed, public-to-members spaces, not open chat rooms. The study you’re referencing involved researchers posting a thread and teenagers replying publicly. There’s no indication private messaging or DMs were part of the study, and even in 2007, one-to-one private contact between adult researchers and minors would have been a serious safeguarding breach. It’s hard to imagine that happening openly or routinely without someone noticing.
Second, when it’s said that “adults associated with the programme had access,” that usually means moderators, staff, or researchers in an observational capacity. Grooming relies on secrecy; those forums were archived, visible, and shared by thousands of academically bright teens. That’s a difficult environment for sustained inappropriate behaviour to go unnoticed.
And this is where my own experience really shapes how I see this. At my former high school, a 27-year-old man was hired as a girls’ football (soccer) coach. He was eventually ousted and fired after accusations of inappropriate contact with a female student. Media involving the student was found on him. After that, other students came forward to say he was creepy, crossed boundaries, and made them uncomfortable. Parents were already uneasy—some even texted him directly, and yes, he received serious threats.
The point is: when an adult is behaving inappropriately around young people, people talk. Students notice. Other students compare notes. Rumours circulate. Someone eventually says, “that guy is weird.”
Which brings me back to NAGTY. It had thousands of members, many of whom are now adults and have spoken publicly about their experiences in the programme. Despite the intense scrutiny around Andrew’s case, literally no one from NAGTY has come forward to say “there was an odd adult,” “someone made me uncomfortable,” or even “it was probably X.” That absence is significant.
Finally, the metal-music overlap feels interesting but very weak as connective tissue. Gifted teens gravitating toward metal as an emotional outlet is common enough that it warranted academic study in the first place—it doesn’t meaningfully narrow anything down.
So I agree it’s an intriguing detail, but without reports, complaints, or even retrospective concerns from NAGTY members themselves, it doesn’t feel like a viable lead. If something inappropriate had been happening in that space, I’d strongly expect someone to have said so by now.