UK UK - Andrew Gosden, 14, Doncaster, South Yorks, 14 Sep 2007 #2

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Thanks for your perspective regarding Kings Cross.

If this woman you mention is still missing, does she have a thread here? (If not, I could start one.)

Hi, sadly I can't recall her name. It was during the UK covid lockdown periods when going out was forbidden / restricted on and off so must have been sometime between early 2020 and late 2021

The flyers were up asking for information for several months together with a photo. I felt baffled how anyone can get on the Eurostar and disappear as the boarding the train in Paris was the last sighting but the train must surely have cameras and also at the St Pancras end it certainly does.

 

[Inspector Evans]

Hi, sadly I can't recall her name. It was during the UK covid lockdown periods when going out was forbidden / restricted on and off so must have been sometime between early 2020 and late 2021

The flyers were up asking for information for several months together with a photo. I felt baffled how anyone can get on the Eurostar and disappear as the boarding the train in Paris was the last sighting but the train must surely have cameras and also at the St Pancras end it certainly does.

Weird if it all happened like that! Did that story ever make the press?!

 

[Sluether87]

This case is excruciating.

His behaviour was deceitful (putting his clothes in the wash, hanging his blazer, taking money from his account, but leaving physical cash at home, leaving his.PSP charger behind). It all suggests that he planned on returning home and didn't want the grief of being caught. Not immediately anyway.

The only scenarios I can muster, after all these years, is that, a) He was communicating with someone (i.e being groomed) secretly. Having 4 children myself, I now fully understand how much a teenager can hide from you, directly under your nose. Clearly he very much was was hiding something, if only just his state of mind.

I was 20-years-old in 2007 and used to use Gumtree, the advert site, as a form of online dating (and making friends). I look back now and I'm horrified, because you just had to trust the person was who they said they were. They would email a picture or two, and that's as far as you got for identifying features. Then I'd go off around London and meet them. Alone.

b) He was out and about in London, or wherever he went from King's Cross and he came across someone nefarious. This is not common, so I feel it's the least likely scenario, but it happens.

 

[Konstantin]

His behaviour was deceitful

Yes exactly. He planned this, in my opinion, and was capable of being deceitful about it. Whether that was because he was being encouraged by someone else (which I believe, see below) with whom he'd developed a strong bond, or he just did this on his own, we don't know. The fact that his parents thought he had "woken up grumpy" the day he disappeared could suggest he was full of nervous anticipation about his plan.

He was communicating with someone (i.e being groomed) secretly. Having 4 children myself, I now fully understand how much a teenager can hide from you, directly under your nose. Clearly he very much was was hiding something, if only just his state of mind.

I believe this is what happened. Andrew was smart. He managed to deceive his parents. He was as you say clearly hiding something. His dad saying that Andrew didn't have a mobile phone because he had "lost" the ones his parents bought him is meaningless. We know Andrew could be deceitful and hide things. I think he went to Kings Cross that day to meet someone, whether he had met them in person before or just remotely, who knows. I think he was groomed. JMO.

 

[Sjöberg]

His dad saying that Andrew didn't have a mobile phone because he had "lost" the ones his parents bought him is meaningless.

And honestly, I don't get the emphasis on the mobile phone anyways.
It was 2007. No, mobile phones were not the main means of communication among teens. Certainly in some sub-groups (i.e maybe older teen girls, doing hours long phone calls), but not mainstream. Frankly, Y-gen mostly hate phone calls and texting back in the day was cumbersome and costly (and obvious from the bill to the parents).

In 2007, the main point of a mobile phone for a 14 year old introvert would be so that his parents could call him if something sudden happens and plans have to be rea-arranged or if he is late for home. No wonder he saw no point in one. I know many kids around his age who resisted getting a phone at the same time period (2005-2007), because that just meant that their parents could reach them and they could not do their teenage shenanigans in peace. (Heh, modern kids have never known the power of being unreachable.)

There are many other ways of getting groomed than in the Internet.
There are many other ways of staying in communication than phone calls.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Yes exactly. He planned this, in my opinion, and was capable of being deceitful about it. Whether that was because he was being encouraged by someone else (which I believe, see below) with whom he'd developed a strong bond, or he just did this on his own, we don't know. The fact that his parents thought he had "woken up grumpy" the day he disappeared could suggest he was full of nervous anticipation about his plan.



I believe this is what happened. Andrew was smart. He managed to deceive his parents. He was as you say clearly hiding something. His dad saying that Andrew didn't have a mobile phone because he had "lost" the ones his parents bought him is meaningless. We know Andrew could be deceitful and hide things. I think he went to Kings Cross that day to meet someone, whether he had met them in person before or just remotely, who knows. I think he was groomed. JMO.

He could have 'woken up grumpy' because he'd been texting all night with someone or suchlike or was nervous having barely slept.

JMO but I really get the feeling he was just going for a day out. To meet someone.
No intention to permanently leave home.
Who could it possibly be and what could they have done with him that he's never been discovered?

So sad

 

[davidt]

Most of what we know about Andrew comes directly from his family. Understandingly they are going to tend to paint him in a favourable light. Its very difficult to understand what he was like away from the home environment. There's been very little from others who knew him. Did he get up to anything, did he ever talk about wanting to do, or planning to do anything? We really know very little about him and his behaviour with others.

 

[Cardgame]

He could have 'woken up grumpy' because he'd been texting all night with someone or suchlike or was nervous having barely slept.

JMO but I really get the feeling he was just going for a day out. To meet someone.
No intention to permanently leave home.
Who could it possibly be and what could they have done with him that he's never been discovered?

So sad

There was footage of him at Kings Cross station, but only alone. Andrew didn't know London, so if he had been planning to meet someone, the sensible thing would surely have been to meet at the station, but perhaps they avoided that, knowing about the cameras.

Prior to mobile phones, the only sensible way to navigate around London was using an A-Z. I guess it's possible Andrew had one of those (?) but the person might also have used a landmark to help Andrew find a meeting place where they could meet up undetected by cameras later. Frustrating that more CCTV wasn't checked sooner at the time, because I bet there was so much more.

Even so, if there was a groomer who lured him all the way to London... why? It's an unusual crime isn't it? It seems high risk, to lure a boy so far from home, with so much pre-planning. If the harm was pre-planned, then the perpetrator got extremely lucky that Andrew didn't leave more of a trail behind.

That's the bit that doesn't quite add up for me, from the perpetrator POV. Why arrange this plan on a day when Andrew was due to be at school? We know Andrew was allowed to go to London on his own. So that particular risk just doesn't seem worth it to me.

And why choose a child so far away from home?

Unless the event was part of the lure. Even then, it feels so elaborate. Such a distance.

It's like none of the scenarios quite make sense. IMO.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

There was footage of him at Kings Cross station, but only alone. Andrew didn't know London, so if he had been planning to meet someone, the sensible thing would surely have been to meet at the station, but perhaps they avoided that, knowing about the cameras.

Prior to mobile phones, the only sensible way to navigate around London was using an A-Z. I guess it's possible Andrew had one of those (?) but the person might also have used a landmark to help Andrew find a meeting place where they could meet up undetected by cameras later. Frustrating that more CCTV wasn't checked sooner at the time, because I bet there was so much more.

Even so, if there was a groomer who lured him all the way to London... why? It's an unusual crime isn't it? It seems high risk, to lure a boy so far from home, with so much pre-planning. If the harm was pre-planned, then the perpetrator got extremely lucky that Andrew didn't leave more of a trail behind.

That's the bit that doesn't quite add up for me, from the perpetrator POV. Why arrange this plan on a day when Andrew was due to be at school? We know Andrew was allowed to go to London on his own. So that particular risk just doesn't seem worth it to me.

And why choose a child so far away from home?

Unless the event was part of the lure. Even then, it feels so elaborate. Such a distance.

It's like none of the scenarios quite make sense. IMO.

Yes, one would imagine that if a predatory abuser had lured Andrew all the way to London for nefarious reasons, that they'd have had it locked down meeting him at the station.

However, depending who they were (if that's what happened), chances are they didn't look like the person they'd told him they were. They may have pretended to be either another young lad or a young woman. They could have even pretended to be connected to a band or TV show or some sort of celebrity situation, saying they could get him a ticket for a gig or something.

Also chances are they'd have avoided a meet up in the centre where cameras are fixed but somewhere a bit further, more discrete. Would they have their own car or walked somewhere or gone on a bus or taken a taxi? Maybe Andrew got in a taxi because he had an address to go to?

Maybe they were even going to get their kicks or manipulate the situation by standing near by the allocated meeting point and then watching him, maybe also loitering nearby, striking up conversation. They would be able to see A becoming distressed and confused and then step in and say 'what's up' and offer assistance such as oh come to mine and use the phone or something.

If someone lured him to London and has done something terrible to him they would need their own premises, at the bare minimum a flat or lock up or garden shed where they took him, somewhere probably not too far or why KX and not a different station such as Euston, Waterloo, Charing X, Victoria.

 

[Sluether87]

By 2007, mobile phones were exceedingly popular amongst teens...but only if you had a social network/someone to talk to. Their primary function was phone and text. The camera was horrific and there wasn't enough memory to store hoards of photos. The social media apps we know today didn't exist yet. Internet access via phone was also a novelty, very expensive and had a limited function. It is plausible to me that he didn't have a phone.

On the other hand, the Internet was booming - forums like Yahoo Answers, Digital Spy etc were growing. YouTube, Wikipedia, MySpace, MSN Messenger...I could go on and on. It happened quickly, and by 2006/07, broadband was becoming a must-have for households. As a teen with niche interests, who didn't have many close friendships, the Internet gave him access to any subject he was interested in, as well as likeminded people to talk to.

It can only be the case that he either accessed something by himself...a book, a magazine, a website etc (to spark the idea in the first place) or more likely (as this was carefully planned and unusual behaviour) he was in contact with someone, somehow. I think the fact that they found nothing on any devices, is simply a red herring. He was clearly very clever and good at hiding things. Someone had to have been spurring him on...

It really reads to me like a typical way to arrange a day out, back then.

He had been chatting to a person for a while, they do not seem like a threat. The person recommends meeting up for a few hours, to hang out or to go to a specific location. They pre-agree a date and time. Andrew knows (or believes) his parents won't allow him to go, or he simply doesn't want to explain himself - he is 14, after all. He leaves early, as he has to get back home before school ends and his parents got home. He meets the person in a mutually-known location, and it all goes wrong from there...

"Oh no, I forgot xyz, can you come back to my place so I can get it?"

"I'm so and so's dad, he wanted me to pick you up instead, is it ok if I drive you there?"

"Why don't we do xyz instead, it won't take long?"

"This is my friend xyz, he wanted to go to this place instead, is that ok?"

 

[Konstantin]

Yes, one would imagine that if a predatory abuser had lured Andrew all the way to London for nefarious reasons, that they'd have had it locked down meeting him at the station.

There might have been other CCTV footage of him meeting someone but the police moved so slowly that most of it was deleted by the time they got around to figuring out he was in London. So nothing of him on the tube etc, if that was where he went (the station has changed a lot since then and I think for the tube entrance you would have had to exit outside).

The camera that caught him would belong to BTP I would imagine but back then it might have been different. Could be a Network Rail camera though.

Trains didn't have CCTV then like now.

So we don't know if he met someone just off the station concourse or not. We only know he arrived there, what he was wearing and that he didn't have a bag of clothing with him.

If whoever met him was smart they would know not to meet him in a place with CCTV. You'd tell him come out of the station exit and turn left or right and go along the road to wherever. That's not hard. I could have done that at his age.

Andrew looked young for his age and based off the police investigation last year and the allegations from the Met of human trafficking etc it seems a line of enquiry that is quite serious is that Andrew was groomed and trafficked by paedophiles who perhaps used him in videos or for images. Doesn't mean they killed him but perhaps he believed his groomer was a good person and was told that if he grassed them up etc he would also be liable for prosecution.

It's sickening really. I hope Andrew is found whatever happened to him and that he is safe and well.

 

[Cardgame]

There might have been other CCTV footage of him meeting someone but the police moved so slowly that most of it was deleted by the time they got around to figuring out he was in London. So nothing of him on the tube etc, if that was where he went (the station has changed a lot since then and I think for the tube entrance you would have had to exit outside).

The camera that caught him would belong to BTP I would imagine but back then it might have been different. Could be a Network Rail camera though.

Trains didn't have CCTV then like now.

So we don't know if he met someone just off the station concourse or not. We only know he arrived there, what he was wearing and that he didn't have a bag of clothing with him.

If whoever met him was smart they would know not to meet him in a place with CCTV. You'd tell him come out of the station exit and turn left or right and go along the road to wherever. That's not hard. I could have done that at his age.

Andrew looked young for his age and based off the police investigation last year and the allegations from the Met of human trafficking etc it seems a line of enquiry that is quite serious is that Andrew was groomed and trafficked by paedophiles who perhaps used him in videos or for images. Doesn't mean they killed him but perhaps he believed his groomer was a good person and was told that if he grassed them up etc he would also be liable for prosecution.

It's sickening really. I hope Andrew is found whatever happened to him and that he is safe and well.

I agree with most of what you say, except the idea that finding a meeting place at kings cross station would be made simple by giving directions. The station is massive, and probably one of the most confusing in London, maybe with the exception of London Bridge. And I say this as someone who has lived in the city since the early noughties.

If he was lured by a groomer then I think Andrew was either met at the station, or was heading somewhere near the station. But you're right, he may have done this and been caught on camera, but the police didn't move fast enough to catch it. So sad.

One other thought though... What in all seriousness could a groomer lure a teenage boy with that could take place - and *had* to take place - during a school day on a weekday? Not a gig. So what? Just a hangout? I still feel it's high risk compared to say, pretending he was going shopping in Camden market on a Saturday.

It's the deception and the school bunking that make no sense to me. Ok yeah sure he needed to lie to his parents. But if he could manage it on a weekday, he could do it at the weekend when it would be much less high risk.

There *must* have been something specific about that day??? But what?!

 

[RC80]

One other thought though... What in all seriousness could a groomer lure a teenage boy with that could take place - and *had* to take place - during a school day on a weekday? Not a gig. So what? Just a hangout? I still feel it's high risk compared to say, pretending he was going shopping in Camden market on a Saturday.

It's the deception and the school bunking that make no sense to me. Ok yeah sure he needed to lie to his parents. But if he could manage it on a weekday, he could do it at the weekend when it would be much less high risk.

There *must* have been something specific about that day??? But what?!

Maybe it is easier to go when you are already expected to be somewhere else (School)? It's possible his parents don't work at weekends so would be home, and/or he just didn't leave the house much so parents would be suspicious if he suddenly announced he's going out for the day.

My take is that he has been groomed, probably online and met up with a nefarious character IMO. On what grounds and guise he was duped by, we shall probably never know.

 

[ekardh]

What are people's thoughts on the Pizza Hut sighting?

If it *was* Andrew, then at this point he was still alone. Does that change anything?

I'm naturally sceptical of the sighting. Imagine working in a busy high street restaurant in the west end of London. Think of the amount of kids and teenagers you'd see every day. There's a good chance you'd see a few with a passing resemblance to Andrew. Now, weeks after the fact, you've got to remember serving one specific kid. On that specific day. I also think you can't put much stock in the kid ordering "Andrew's favourite pizza" either. Plenty of kids like Hawaiian. It's a meme that everyone hates it. It doesn't stay on the menu if people don't like it!

But it could've been him, Andrew's father thought it was credible, whether that was wishful thinking or not. This case is characterised by the fact that little can be established.

 

[Sluether87]

On the Thin Air podcast, Andrew's dad said they were sadly always one step behind available CCTV, which was ultimately deleted or taped over. Alongside a lack of communication between forces, the police clearly didn't take it seriously that he'd come to harm and assumed he'd just reappear.

I think he went on a weekday, because his parents would have been home at the weekend, and he clearly didn't want them to know what he was up to. Look at the lengths he went to hide his actions, he was doing way more than just taking a lone day trip to London.

 

[Lucy6226]

And honestly, I don't get the emphasis on the mobile phone anyways.
It was 2007. No, mobile phones were not the main means of communication among teens. Certainly in some sub-groups (i.e maybe older teen girls, doing hours long phone calls), but not mainstream. Frankly, Y-gen mostly hate phone calls and texting back in the day was cumbersome and costly (and obvious from the bill to the parents).

In 2007, the main point of a mobile phone for a 14 year old introvert would be so that his parents could call him if something sudden happens and plans have to be rea-arranged or if he is late for home. No wonder he saw no point in one. I know many kids around his age who resisted getting a phone at the same time period (2005-2007), because that just meant that their parents could reach them and they could not do their teenage shenanigans in peace. (Heh, modern kids have never known the power of being unreachable.)

There are many other ways of getting groomed than in the Internet.
There are many other ways of staying in communication than phone calls.

Exactly. Grooming and abductions happened before mobile phones and before the internet. I don't know why people find it so hard to believe that Andrew didn't have access to either. MOO

 

[Deleted member 235284]

Exactly. Grooming and abductions happened before mobile phones and before the internet. I don't know why people find it so hard to believe that Andrew didn't have access to either. MOO

People defo treat 2007 too much as being present day. In the sense that it would be very odd for a kid of Andrews age not to have been using the internet or to have a phone.

 

[Deleted member 235284]

What are people's thoughts on the Pizza Hut sighting?

If it *was* Andrew, then at this point he was still alone. Does that change anything?

I'm naturally sceptical of the sighting. Imagine working in a busy high street restaurant in the west end of London. Think of the amount of kids and teenagers you'd see every day. There's a good chance you'd see a few with a passing resemblance to Andrew. Now, weeks after the fact, you've got to remember serving one specific kid. On that specific day. I also think you can't put much stock in the kid ordering "Andrew's favourite pizza" either. Plenty of kids like Hawaiian. It's a meme that everyone hates it. It doesn't stay on the menu if people don't like it!

But it could've been him, Andrew's father thought it was credible, whether that was wishful thinking or not. This case is characterised by the fact that little can be established.

I have never been sure what to make of it tbh. I have always leaned to not believe it because its just so hard to prove if it was legit. Given its such a busy city. Could easily have been some other kid, I know what the parents think.

If it was him, it does kind of pose the question imho if he was having some kind of last meal etc. Because he had a plan that would be his last day alive.

 

[Inspector Evans]

Yes, one would imagine that if a predatory abuser had lured Andrew all the way to London for nefarious reasons, that they'd have had it locked down meeting him at the station.

However, depending who they were (if that's what happened), chances are they didn't look like the person they'd told him they were. They may have pretended to be either another young lad or a young woman. They could have even pretended to be connected to a band or TV show or some sort of celebrity situation, saying they could get him a ticket for a gig or something.

Also chances are they'd have avoided a meet up in the centre where cameras are fixed but somewhere a bit further, more discrete. Would they have their own car or walked somewhere or gone on a bus or taken a taxi? Maybe Andrew got in a taxi because he had an address to go to?

Maybe they were even going to get their kicks or manipulate the situation by standing near by the allocated meeting point and then watching him, maybe also loitering nearby, striking up conversation. They would be able to see A becoming distressed and confused and then step in and say 'what's up' and offer assistance such as oh come to mine and use the phone or something.

If someone lured him to London and has done something terrible to him they would need their own premises, at the bare minimum a flat or lock up or garden shed where they took him, somewhere probably not too far or why KX and not a different station such as Euston, Waterloo, Charing X, Victoria.

The counter to all that is the potential Pizza Express sighting. If that was Andrew it was confirmed the diner was eating alone. He'd been in London about two hours at that point.

My gut feeling is he didn't meet anyone straight away from exiting the station, had a wander around London, wanted to eat something at 1pm which would be perfectly normal and then from 2pm onwards is the huge question mark. Where did he go? Who did he meet? Was he planning to stay the night somewhere or go back home that evening?

Something sinister then occurred in the evening probably away from the central part.

 

[Inspector Evans]

What are people's thoughts on the Pizza Hut sighting?

If it *was* Andrew, then at this point he was still alone. Does that change anything?

I'm naturally sceptical of the sighting. Imagine working in a busy high street restaurant in the west end of London. Think of the amount of kids and teenagers you'd see every day. There's a good chance you'd see a few with a passing resemblance to Andrew. Now, weeks after the fact, you've got to remember serving one specific kid. On that specific day. I also think you can't put much stock in the kid ordering "Andrew's favourite pizza" either. Plenty of kids like Hawaiian. It's a meme that everyone hates it. It doesn't stay on the menu if people don't like it!

But it could've been him, Andrew's father thought it was credible, whether that was wishful thinking or not. This case is characterised by the fact that little can be established.

Didn't the waitress describe some mannerisms that when put to his family they said were consistent with how Andrew would react when sitting down and eating a meal?

Not sure how long after that Friday the interview was conducted but while I'm sure it was fairly busy as a Friday it was a school day and ultimately Andrew was just wearing a short sleeve Slipknot shirt so that would be something for the waitress to try to remember.

Not sure though if that detail was mentioned to the police. Did they appeal for anyone else in the restaurant that Friday afternoon to come forward to try to collaborate that potential sighting?

To me it's significant if he was there and on his own as shows he didn't meet up with anyone straight away.