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

[Professor Moriarty]

I also wanted to add some perspective about Andrew being on the train that I think gets overlooked. I’ve spent time in Germany, and I had serious culture shock when I saw four-year-olds taking themselves to kindergarten on public transport. This video explains what I mean really well:

.

So the fact that people think it’s “weird” for Andrew to have been on a train doesn’t seem odd to me at all. Even here in the UK, I’ll be going to the dentist during school or work hours and then go to the bus stop, and I see kids who are fifteen waiting with me. I always instinctively text my husband about it, and he always reassures me that it’s normal for England. I’m American, and I’ve been living in the UK for a decade, so it still surprises me—but to locals, it’s completely ordinary. That’s probably why no one thought to question Andrew being on a train by himself.
I also don’t think he was “looking for someone” at the station. I think he was simply taking in his surroundings. Personally, I’ve never been taught to read maps—born in the late ’80s, no proper geography classes—and I rely on MapQuest and Google Maps. Even now, navigating London without a maps app would leave me completely lost, despite having been there many times. I use it all the time just to make sense of my surroundings.

I think Andrew was probably doing the same—just trying to orient himself, not actively searching for anyone or anything.

Although young kids use buses, people from outside of London tend not to use London buses so much because they don't know the bus route. There are maps for the underground all over,in the back of diaries etc, as you pull into a station you can see the name of the station and you would know that your station is the next one. It's not the same with buses. A youngster from Yorkshire would not know which bus to catch and when to get off.

 

[vagab0nd]

I've followed this case off and on and this (sadly) seems the most plausible explanation. I've always thought he'd have likely got into a cab after leaving the train station. And whilst I haven't read this particular article before now, it fits. And I don't think it's confirmation bias, I think logically it does seem to fit like a glove.

But why go to London in the first place without informing anyone? Was there someone posing as a teenage boy (or girl) online and he arranged to meet them? It seems quite unlikely (at least to me) that he'd go down to spend time in London alone.

I wonder if police ever followed up on any of this? The only thing that doesn't make sense to me, is that Worboys' victims were female. Why the change of MO? Why target a teenage boy?

A lot about this case makes no sense. I often wonder if there's a significant amount more information that police have but haven't made public.

The police checked his digital history and found nothing. Even his PSP had never been online according to Sony. How else could he have been chatting to someone? Snail mail? The parents would've noticed that. Maybe his missing phones hold a clue but we will never know.

 

[ChatteringBirds]

How else could he have been chatting to someone?

If he was chatting with someone, I speculate in an online chatroom or message board website using a computer, perhaps at school or a library. My speculation is based on my own experiences in the 90s and early 2000s, chatting online (not from the UK, though).

Teenagers want to make friends, and they can be naive. I just don't think LE's investigations would necessarily have discovered it, if he was chatting online.
MOO.

 

[vagab0nd]

If he wasn't going back to Doncaster that night where was he going? And how was he getting there as not like every single part of London has a tube spot (South of the Thames).

I think that could be key. He's looking around for a vehicle to get him somewhere else and it pulls up and he gets in with the money he has which was clearly withdrawn to pay for something that day.

Are we sure he's not just looking around to figure out where he needs to go? Like trying to look at his surroundings or read signs? That was my first thought because I grew up in the era where my parents always printed out Map Quest directions and then eventually relied on Google Maps when smartphones came around. I would be lost without my phone. I go to London every Monday for work and even though I've done it for years I still have to check routes. Sometimes you just forget.

 

[rvlvr]

I'm not from the UK and not familiar with these SKs, but could it have been Worboys' friend? What was his profile/MO?
And Worboys just claimed to the inmate to also be involved, as a "fantasy" or "bragging rights? (I hate to put it that way.)

Did either man come across as charming/ trustworthy as part of being psychopaths? (I picture creepy-looking guys, but maybe they weren't and were very good at tricking people?)

The thing about Worboys is - as far as anyone knows, anyway - he never killed anyone. He was a serial sex offender who’d kid on to women that he’d picked up in his cab late at night that he’d won some money, and he’d ask them to share champagne with him to celebrate. The champagne would be drugged with sedatives, and lot of his victims were already worse for wear after a night out anyway. Then he’d sexually assault them.

I’ve no idea who Dave is meant to be, as far as I know Worboys committed all of his offences solo, so the idea of him abducting and killing a teenage boy along with an accomplice just seems a bit off to me, but you never know.

 

[vagab0nd]

The thing about Worboys is - as far as anyone knows, anyway - he never killed anyone. He was a serial sex offender who’d kid on to women that he’d picked up in his cab late at night that he’d won some money, and he’d ask them to share champagne with him to celebrate. The champagne would be drugged with sedatives, and lot of his victims were already worse for wear after a night out anyway. Then he’d sexually assault them.

I’ve no idea who Dave is meant to be, as far as I know Worboys committed all of his offences solo, so the idea of him abducting and killing a teenage boy along with an accomplice just seems a bit off to me, but you never know.

It does sound odd and out of character. There are rare cases where killers have "drifted," such as Ted Bundy, who primarily targeted young women with long hair parted in the middle but occasionally deviated in his methods or victim types when he was under extreme stress or "de-compensating." I don't know if this is the case with John. Sounds more like a made up story to brag to a crime writer.

 

[infohuntah]

The police checked his digital history and found nothing. Even his PSP had never been online according to Sony. How else could he have been chatting to someone? Snail mail? The parents would've noticed that. Maybe his missing phones hold a clue but we will never know.

Nonsense. You're talking to an expert in that field. Some digital history is ephemeral and wouldn't leave a trace. The parents would never have noticed a thing.

 

[Inspector Evans]

Are we sure he's not just looking around to figure out where he needs to go? Like trying to look at his surroundings or read signs? That was my first thought because I grew up in the era where my parents always printed out Map Quest directions and then eventually relied on Google Maps when smartphones came around. I would be lost without my phone. I go to London every Monday for work and even though I've done it for years I still have to check routes. Sometimes you just forget.

Hi Vagabond, really enjoying your posts above so keep on contributing.

I actually agree with you. The last known CCTV image of him when he comes out I also think he's just adjusting to surroundings. It's something I always do when coming out of train stations in cities I haven't visited much. Look left and right to see if there is bus station, pub, shops etc.

Or could be case it was sunny morning I think and he was coming from darkish concourse so wearing glasses sometimes you get dazzled a bit from reflections so you move your head to the side.

I never thought he got in a vehicle straight after arriving in London and I think it is reasonable suggestion he was leisurely enjoying himself around London that lunchtime but frustratingly CCTV wasn't searched in time.

The late Afternoon is the big mystery as what or who was keeping him in London past 4-5pm?

 

[tricia]

THIS SATURDAY = GUARDIAN ZOOM MADNESS
It’s EPIC.
It’s 8 HOURS.
It’s our MONTHLY GUARDIAN ZOOM CALL — and you’re invited!
Saturday, January 17
12 NOON – 8 PM Eastern
(Yes, really. No, you don’t have to stay the whole time )

YOU MUST REGISTER FIRST — CLICK HERE to register
Pro tip: You do NOT have to use your real name. Your Websleuths username is perfect.
WHAT WILL WE TALK ABOUT?

(Here are a few ideas but we can talk about almost anything you want)​

What case drives you absolutely crazy — and why
What changes you’d like to see on Websleuths
Your brush with fame (we KNOW you have one)
And lots more laughs, surprises, and great conversation

FREE STUFF!​

We’ll be giving away FREE Guardian memberships
You can nominate Websleuths members you think deserve one — because kindness matters.

REGISTER HERE for the call
Want to become a Guardian? CLICK HERE — it’s easy and only $3/month

Come and go as you please.
Pop in. Pop out. Stay 10 minutes or all day — it’s totally up to you.

Check out the screenshot from our last Guardian call…
See? We’re a fun bunch! That's me in the middle in the "Alice" square if you are looking at this like the Brady Bunch.

 

[vagab0nd]

Nonsense. You're talking to an expert in that field. Some digital history is ephemeral and wouldn't leave a trace. The parents would never have noticed a thing.

I don’t think this is nonsense. People are projecting today’s internet habits onto 2007. Limited or no internet access wasn’t unusual, especially for kids from working-class households.

If the family only got internet shortly before Andrew disappeared, the only computer was his sister’s, and he wasn’t known to use it, then it’s entirely plausible he left no digital footprint.

Lack of online activity doesn’t imply secrecy — it may simply mean lack of access or interest, and that needs to be taken seriously in this case. I mean, the town I grew up in didn't have WiFi you could with your provider until 2011. I grew up in an area where the nearest public library was 1.5hrs drive away. We didn't even have a library in any of our schools. If we wanted to use the computer lab we had to use it in class time and we weren't allowed to loiter in it after school. If your family was poor and you didn't have access to a PC at home or through family/friends you were genuinely fcked. I knew classmates back then who didn't have interests in YouTube, MySpace, LiveJournal, Bebo, etc.

I just think the whole secret thing would've been uncovered somehow by now.

 

[Inspector Evans]

I had a PC from about 2002 in my room. Dial up for a few years!

Started secondary school in 2000 and I.T lessons involved learning how to use "Ask Jeeves" Ahh memories.

Most of my form were on MSN Messenger around 2004 and certainly in sixth form a few years later a few mates showed me internet chat rooms they were using but this was monitored by the school so could get in trouble if it wasn't a brief visit.

According to family Andrew wasn't interested in using a computer or a mobile phone yet on the day he went missing he was glued to his PSP for the train journey down so he wasn't quite the technophobe portrayed in the press.

 

[vagab0nd]

I had a PC from about 2002 in my room. Dial up for a few years!

Started secondary school in 2000 and I.T lessons involved learning how to use "Ask Jeeves" Ahh memories.

Most of my form were on MSN Messenger around 2004 and certainly in sixth form a few years later a few mates showed me internet chat rooms they were using but this was monitored by the school so could get in trouble if it wasn't a brief visit.

According to family Andrew wasn't interested in using a computer or a mobile phone yet on the day he went missing he was glued to his PSP for the train journey down so he wasn't quite the technophobe portrayed in the press.

My husband always takes his Switch for train journeys and doesn't connect it to WiFi. Just because a device has the capability doesn't mean it's something that the user will use. He probably just took it to kill time on the train. Maybe people are reading too deep into these things or they really are something we should just take at face value. We really can't say because there's just not enough evidence.

 

[infohuntah]

I don’t think this is nonsense. People are projecting today’s internet habits onto 2007. Limited or no internet access wasn’t unusual, especially for kids from working-class households.

If the family only got internet shortly before Andrew disappeared, the only computer was his sister’s, and he wasn’t known to use it, then it’s entirely plausible he left no digital footprint.

Lack of online activity doesn’t imply secrecy — it may simply mean lack of access or interest, and that needs to be taken seriously in this case. I mean, the town I grew up in didn't have WiFi you could with your provider until 2011. I grew up in an area where the nearest public library was 1.5hrs drive away. We didn't even have a library in any of our schools. If we wanted to use the computer lab we had to use it in class time and we weren't allowed to loiter in it after school. If your family was poor and you didn't have access to a PC at home or through family/friends you were genuinely fcked. I knew classmates back then who didn't have interests in YouTube, MySpace, LiveJournal, Bebo, etc.

I just think the whole secret thing would've been uncovered somehow by now.

I totally get what you mean about applying the modern day to 2007 but 2007 was far from the early days of the internet. By this point, people were using chat programs e.g MSN etc. I'm not suggesting Andrew was though.

We'll probably never know if he did use/say anything over the computer. Maybe he didn't. All I'm saying is, I used to play online games in that era and the chats were not stored on the computer so it wouldn't be possible to get them. In 2007, from the game servers, yes, possibly, but from a home computer, no. But, if you say he didn't use the family computer I'll take your word for it.

It's a mysterious case and I hope it gets solved, but I don't think a computer / phone / psp will be how this one gets solved.

 

[LisMarit]

Perhaps it was someone at his school who gave his address in London, and on the day he disappeared he actually went after that person. What I’m trying to understand is the element of secrecy surrounding this case. His sister had permission from their parents and had even gone to London alone once. So if Andrew had asked, they certainly would have allowed it.

 

[infohuntah]

Perhaps it was someone at his school who gave his address in London, and on the day he disappeared he actually went after that person. What I’m trying to understand is the element of secrecy surrounding this case. His sister had permission from their parents and had even gone to London alone once. So if Andrew had asked, they certainly would have allowed it.

What did his sister go to London for?

 

[Sarahlou]

What did his sister go to London for?

To look for work experience when she was 14.

 

[infohuntah]

To look for work experience when she was 14.

Could this be a similar thing? Is it possible he was looking for work experience? But maybe just assumed his parents would be ok with it? What throws me off the scent is the one-way train ticket. The return ticket as we all know was 50p more. From what I read, he insisted he didn't want the return ticket. It makes me think he knew he wasn't coming back (at least by train?)

 

[vagab0nd]

Could this be a similar thing? Is it possible he was looking for work experience? But maybe just assumed his parents would be ok with it? What throws me off the scent is the one-way train ticket. The return ticket as we all know was 50p more. From what I read, he insisted he didn't want the return ticket. It makes me think he knew he wasn't coming back (at least by train?)

He could've gone handing out CVs. We don't know what was in his messenger bag. His parents said it was possible, but nobody has said if he showed interest in wanting a job. I mean, I used to do it at his age.

My husband travelled around London a lot with his friends when he was 14. He was born just a few months before Andrew, was also considered gifted, and was in gifted school programmes. They’d regularly take an hour-and-a-half train into the city, then use the Tube to go to museums, the Lego store, Japanese markets, or the cinema in Leicester Square.

He always bought a return ticket. Even at that age, he understood it was better value. Part of that probably comes from the fact that my father-in-law worked for the railway for many years before privatisation, so train knowledge was just normal in their household. Because of that, I find it hard to believe Andrew’s one-way ticket was accidental or naive. It feels deliberate — like he had some kind of plan, even if we’ll never know what it was.

I also don’t think the average British parent warns their child about fake black cab drivers. My husband’s parents certainly didn’t. It just wasn’t something people thought about. I went to university in New York City at 17 and never once questioned getting into a yellow cab — it genuinely never occurred to me that it could be fake, and even now in my late 30s it’s not something I instinctively consider.

My husband was never harassed or singled out when he was alone in London. So why Andrew? That’s what I find unsettling. Why him, specifically? The whole thing feels deeply bizarre.
Personally, I still think the answer lies in a body of water, woodland, or someone’s garden. I don’t think we’ll ever find the PSP — we don’t have the serial number, and we have no idea what happened to his belongings. At this point, all we can really do is speculate.

I also read that it cost around £50,000 for just one stretch of the Thames to be searched by Andrew’s parents. Given that, it seems unlikely that a search of that scale will happen again anytime soon.

 

[Aluev]

It feels deliberate — like he had some kind of plan, even if we’ll never know what it was.

That's exactly what has been bothering me. Andrew's actions that morning seem deliberate and planned. He pretended to go to school, hid in the park until the house was empty, went back and changed, leaving his clothes in the washer, withdrew money from the ATM, and left after rush hour. He then refused a return ticket and went on his way. If we are to believe that he was met with some sort of accidental encounter in London or had an accident of some sort, it still doesn't explain his deliberate actions that morning.

On another note, does anyone know how much would a 5-6 km ride cost in a black cab? I always thought it was really expensive, but I might be wrong. How far did Andrew's relatives live from central London?

The thing about Worboys is - as far as anyone knows, anyway - he never killed anyone. He was a serial sex offender who’d kid on to women that he’d picked up in his cab late at night that he’d won some money, and he’d ask them to share champagne with him to celebrate. The champagne would be drugged with sedatives, and lot of his victims were already worse for wear after a night out anyway. Then he’d sexually assault them.

I’ve no idea who Dave is meant to be, as far as I know Worboys committed all of his offences solo, so the idea of him abducting and killing a teenage boy along with an accomplice just seems a bit off to me, but you never know.

Worboys was a stripper and was also a producer of adult films. It seems he was also bragging about his perfect method to get what he wanted to his friends. I also wanted to find more about who this Dave was so I found this:

Taxi rapist John Worboys boasted about using date rape drugs to stripper pal​

I don't want to think about it, but perhaps the dosage he used resulted in an accidental death as an adult can tolerate a different amount than a child of 14. Perhaps the accomplice he was talking about helped him cover the evidence.

 

[vagab0nd]

That's exactly what has been bothering me. Andrew's actions that morning seem deliberate and planned. He pretended to go to school, hid in the park until the house was empty, went back and changed, leaving his clothes in the washer, withdrew money from the ATM, and left after rush hour. He then refused a return ticket and went on his way. If we are to believe that he was met with some sort of accidental encounter in London or had an accident of some sort, it still doesn't explain his deliberate actions that morning.

On another note, does anyone know how much would a 5-6 km ride cost in a black cab? I always thought it was really expensive, but I might be wrong. How far did Andrew's relatives live from central London?


Worboys was a stripper and was also a producer of adult films. It seems he was also bragging about his perfect method to get what he wanted to his friends. I also wanted to find more about who this Dave was so I found this:

Taxi rapist John Worboys boasted about using date rape drugs to stripper pal​

I don't want to think about it, but perhaps the dosage he used resulted in an accidental death as an adult can tolerate a different amount than a child of 14. Perhaps the accomplice he was talking about helped him cover the evidence.

A taxi in 2007 was about £12-£18 for 5-6km. That's not a crazy price.