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

[warp3dwing]

What in the ChatGPT is going on here?

 

[matchaoatmilk]

Im not even going for "his school should have done things differently" in the context of that day and Andrew cause apparently whole system wasnt well thought through and that one person responsible for calling would probably get in trouble for making persistent calls about each absent student if that wasnt clearly stated as expected of them.

Its just that it got made into such a big deal like ruined attendance, not even a note left for parents, not caring that they will be horrified when school will call them... like it certainly means A LOT while in reality it could be not ruined at all + no reason to consider that parents actually will be notified + plan to came back or call home before they will notice.

And im super frustrated with myself. Ive probably first heard about Andrew 15+ years ago and each time something reminded me of him i was considering possible suicide cause no returning ticket or a ride back by car... but not once that he could be heading somewhere else and London was just where he switched train for a bus & no return ticket cause no plan of going back same way.
Not that its super probable or anything but... possible, mondain, simple explanation. People probably do that thousands on thousands times more often than buying one way ticked cause going somewhere with a plan to commit suicide.

I feel like a lot of people are over intellectualizing Andrew by projecting their own panic onto him. Like they are imagining what they would feel if they skipped school once and then reverse engineering a motive. That is not how real life works and it definitely is not how fourteen year olds think. I am a millennial and when Andrew went missing my life was already objectively bad. My dad had died suddenly the year before. No warning. No slow goodbye. Just gone. I was also getting bullied hard at school and most of my friends drifted away because people do not know how to exist around grief. It was lonely and destabilizing. And I am saying this clearly. Even in that state suicide never crossed my mind. Pain does not automatically flip a switch that makes someone want to die and it is wild how often people assume that in this case.

I also grew up in a tiny town. Like three hundred people tiny. If I did not show up to school the office would have called my parents almost immediately. Not because of attendance awards or discipline but because absence meant something was wrong. That is where the culture gap shows up. England sounds extremely strict about school attendance on paper. Fines. Letters. Legal threats. But that strictness is about compliance not care. Parents can get fined hundreds of pounds just for taking their kid out of school for a week. Yet when a kid actually does not show up unexpectedly the system back then was not built to treat that as urgent. It is rigid and weirdly passive at the same time.
There is also this idea floating around that Andrew would have believed missing one day permanently ruined his future. That does not really track. Authorized absences existed. Parents could excuse things retroactively. One missed day was not a life ending event. And more importantly real life does not work the way people think it does when they turn school into mythology. I graduated high school with a two point five GPA and still ended up at Yale and Juilliard. That is not a flex. It is proof that paths are nonlinear and that kids do not actually experience their lives as a single fragile thread that snaps if they mess up once.

When you look at the theories one by one none of them really lock into place. Suicide does not match his behavior or the logistics. Running away collapses when you look at money documents and the total absence of any later trace. Accidental death does not work in a city like London where bodies are found and identified. Grooming or third party involvement explains more but even that only works if evidence exists somewhere and never surfaced publicly. Every theory breaks. That is why this case never settles into something neat.

What feels hardest for people to accept is that this was not a dramatic symbolic act about attendance or grades or pressure. It was a quiet kid moving through a system that runs on assumptions. That good students are fine. That absence can be explained later. That tomorrow always exists. The failure here is not one rule or one person. It is that the system was never designed to notice someone like Andrew in real time.

 

[vagab0nd]

Which assumptions do you think would need to be supported by behavior? Suicide isn't predictable, because there often are no real signs, even in retrospect, baffling as that is to their loved-ones. So IMO it has to remain a possibility that's considered, even if not high on the list.

I get that suicide can’t be totally ruled out and that it often comes without clear signs, but in Andrew’s case the behaviors we actually see don’t really line up with what you’d expect from someone heading toward that kind of finality. He wasn’t isolating himself, he didn’t give away possessions, he didn’t leave notes, and he acted in practical ways—taking his wallet, keys, PSP, and withdrawing money—like someone moving into the world rather than leaving it behind. Emotion and expression matter too, and from everything we know Andrew didn’t show the kind of narrowing of focus or despair that typically precedes suicide, even if it’s subtle or internal. Teens often express distress in ways that can be quiet or misunderstood, but there’s usually some signal in choice, tone, or routine, and Andrew’s choices that day suggest openness and curiosity rather than withdrawal or finality. That doesn’t make suicide impossible, but it makes it less plausible than theories that account for his behavior, decisions, and the environment he was moving through.

 

[ekardh]

I get that suicide can’t be totally ruled out and that it often comes without clear signs, but in Andrew’s case the behaviors we actually see don’t really line up with what you’d expect from someone heading toward that kind of finality. He wasn’t isolating himself, he didn’t give away possessions, he didn’t leave notes, and he acted in practical ways—taking his wallet, keys, PSP, and withdrawing money—like someone moving into the world rather than leaving it behind. Emotion and expression matter too, and from everything we know Andrew didn’t show the kind of narrowing of focus or despair that typically precedes suicide, even if it’s subtle or internal. Teens often express distress in ways that can be quiet or misunderstood, but there’s usually some signal in choice, tone, or routine, and Andrew’s choices that day suggest openness and curiosity rather than withdrawal or finality. That doesn’t make suicide impossible, but it makes it less plausible than theories that account for his behavior, decisions, and the environment he was moving through.

Thank you, ChatGPT.

 

[beubeubeu]

Which assumptions do you think would need to be supported by behavior? Suicide isn't predictable, because there often are no real signs, even in retrospect, baffling as that is to their loved-ones. So IMO it has to remain a possibility that's considered, even if not high on the list.

More often than not it is predictable and doesnt come out of the blue.
May come out of the blue to the closest people, cause of the put up facade that went on cause the person thought that theyre gonna make it somehow and no need to worry family - then the issues grow and so the wall that divides people.
BUT then there is still a lot "visible" in handsight. Like not really something that would be seen as a warning at the time it happened, but in retrospection things start adding up. Not to the level of family/friends concluding that oh, yup, totally makes sense obviously, but some warning signs are visible (in handsight).
It is a possibility, sure, of course. Nothing rules out the possibility of it.
But not much is ruling it in. He went somewhere, hasnt come back, whole world failed to track him despite of the fact he hasnt disappeared in the middle of nowhere but in London, where cams are everywhere.
Its a possibility the moment anyone goes to the bathroom that they may just went there to kill themselves. But the probability of that aint high.

 

[beubeubeu]

I feel like a lot of people are over intellectualizing Andrew by projecting their own panic onto him. Like they are imagining what they would feel if they skipped school once and then reverse engineering a motive. That is not how real life works and it definitely is not how fourteen year olds think. I am a millennial and when Andrew went missing my life was already objectively bad. My dad had died suddenly the year before. No warning. No slow goodbye. Just gone. I was also getting bullied hard at school and most of my friends drifted away because people do not know how to exist around grief. It was lonely and destabilizing. And I am saying this clearly. Even in that state suicide never crossed my mind. Pain does not automatically flip a switch that makes someone want to die and it is wild how often people assume that in this case.

Like for real, I cant recall one single example of suicide that came out of the blue for EVERYONE and STAYED like that even after it happened. Like not one. So I dont know how often it really happens. Especially with kids.

I can get how someone who ends up completely lonely, no fam, no friends, not close with neighbors, not a part of any religious community, not even a rich history of years long involvement in stamp collecting forum online and circumstances like that - then of course. People around may be completely shocked and unable to comprehend how this person who appeared fine while they were occasionally chatting could be going through something so horrific that it led them to take their life.

And I can get how someone who HAS loving family, friends, even close ties with community may hide their struggles in a way that nobody connects the dots before the worst happens.
But then there is handsight. Then these people can go back and see how this, this and that WAS likely a sign that something is terribly bad, but it got missed, misinterpreted and so on.
There are tracks, proofs, hints, signs left. Thats almost always a result of immense struggle, immense troubles, suffering or/and mental issues and as all that persons possesions and all memories of people around them get confronted like they never were before... and then you see that things indeed WERE going wrong.

I dont know. Maybe it really happens but three people I kinda knew growing up + my best friend's dad committed suicide and I was shocked... and also not really. I couldnt tell that it was that bad as they were still with us, but then more came out, and... wasnt that shocking anymore that they couldnt bear.
Then... just more and more of that as I worked with people who were going through traumatic life events. Almost always people knew its bad, they just havent realized its THAT bad - or they learned what was going on after the fact.

Im just scared of the risk. Cause wrong assumption of suicidex puts family&friends in such immense guilt and loop of overthinking what could they do differently... or leaves murderer free&unbothered.

There is also this idea floating around that Andrew would have believed missing one day permanently ruined his future. That does not really track. Authorized absences existed. Parents could excuse things retroactively. One missed day was not a life ending event. And more importantly real life does not work the way people think it does when they turn school into mythology. I graduated high school with a two point five GPA and still ended up at Yale and Juilliard. That is not a flex. It is proof that paths are nonlinear and that kids do not actually experience their lives as a single fragile thread that snaps if they mess up once.

People are different and kids are different. It is possible that tiny failure could grow in somebodys head to the level of life ruining event, especially if encouraged by more and more pressure.
But... there was no failure, tiny or big in Andrew's education. No skipped school before. So its kinda like... considering that he felt that he has to committ suicide, cause no other option, his future ruined because he skipped school and went to London to committ suicide cause he skipped school? It doesnt make any sense. Other factors have to be considered, but if other factors, then NOT that one day absence.

When you look at the theories one by one none of them really lock into place. Suicide does not match his behavior or the logistics. Running away collapses when you look at money documents and the total absence of any later trace. Accidental death does not work in a city like London where bodies are found and identified. Grooming or third party involvement explains more but even that only works if evidence exists somewhere and never surfaced publicly. Every theory breaks. That is why this case never settles into something neat.

Well... even that PSP theory doesnt make that much sense.
If he had 220pounds in his account + 100 in his room he could easily buy that PSP.
Why not buy it in Doncaster? It surely was available there. Internet says it was possible to purchase even on 14th.
No difference from London. The only difference would be if he went there for the midnight launch, but he was already 13 hours late for that as he arrived.
And thats less than 2 miles walk from Kings Cross to the biggest PSP stores on Oxford Street. Broad daylight yet it doesnt seem like he made it there at all cause no surveillance from there.
Aaand why no returning ticket if it was just to maybe still get on some launching events?

What feels hardest for people to accept is that this was not a dramatic symbolic act about attendance or grades or pressure. It was a quiet kid moving through a system that runs on assumptions. That good students are fine. That absence can be explained later. That tomorrow always exists. The failure here is not one rule or one person. It is that the system was never designed to notice someone like Andrew in real time.

Oh yeah, totally.

 

[ChatteringBirds]

I cant recall one single example of suicide that came out of the blue for EVERYONE and STAYED like that even after it happened.

Well I'll just say while I think abduction is more likely, I also think Andrew was a deeply feeling kid, who maybe (even likely) was being bullied/teased/excluded by some peers and although he did not seem depressed to those around him, he did listen to intense music (which I know is common), did have some secrets (also common), and was socially withdrawing. So I think he could have rather spontaneously felt difficult feelings while travelling and...?

(My thoughts may be biased today as I just read some possible bad news about a currently missing teen in New York, thought to have gone to meet someone from online but now being said was last seen on a bridge.)

 

[Moonstrawbs]

But history father always took him to any and all gigs he wanted to see. He also didn't have ID on him. Why would he go to this one gig behind his parents back and without ID? You need ID to enter most gig venues.

Back then I went to a lot of gigs especially around 2008 time and I never once brought ID with me. I don't even recall being asked for it so back then it was different, unless it depends on the area etc. jmo

 

[ekardh]

I believe that Andrew was lured to London by someone who lived there, was working there at the time, or used the attractions of London to entice Andrew away from the goldfish bowl of Doncaster. Sure, there were other major cities closer to home, but the closer to home you go, the more chance you have of someone recognising you if you're local to the area. It's far easier to blend into the crowd in somewhere like central London. Also, the further away you draw your target, the more control you can exert over them.

There is no evidence Andrew was planning to be gone for long. He didn't take all his cash, spare clothes, or charger for his PSP. A lot has been made of the fact he turned down a return ticket for an extra 50p, but do we know what kind of ticket it was? It was probably an off-peak return for that price. That could be the reason Andrew refused it, because he was planning to come back the next morning.

 

[VelvetDiamante]

When you look at the theories one by one none of them really lock into place. Suicide does not match his behavior or the logistics. Running away collapses when you look at money documents and the total absence of any later trace. Accidental death does not work in a city like London where bodies are found and identified. Grooming or third party involvement explains more but even that only works if evidence exists somewhere and never surfaced publicly. Every theory breaks. That is why this case never settles into something neat.

Based on all the known information we currently have, I think opportunistic foul play makes the most sense, despite the fact it would be an incredibly unlucky and coincidental thing to happen on the first day he decides to skip school.

He was known to have loved London, so I don't think he would have needed much of a reason to go there.

His dad had suggested to him that summer that he should go there on his own and stay with his grandma. Andrew declined because he had been busy that summer, and just wanted to chill out at home before he started the new term at school.

Maybe when he went back to school, he was unhappy there and felt like rebelling a bit. He remembered his dad's offer which validated his need to get away from school for the day.

He would've been quite vulnerable on his own in London as he had poor eyesight, was deaf in one ear, was baby-faced and small in stature. He will have stuck out like a sore thumb to any unsavoury characters who noticed him.

He seemed like a sensible boy who would not go off with a stranger. So maybe he trusted someone with some kind of authority, such as a taxi driver, shopkeeper or an off-duty policeman?

 

[VelvetDiamante]

If it wasn't an opportunist then I have to wonder if it was someone known to Andrew and his parents. Perhaps one of their connections from London. Trying to be careful what I say. But it's usually someone known to the victim.

His actions and behaviour that day don't point towards suicide, in my opinion. The new life theory is ridiculous and unrealistic.

 

[beubeubeu]

I watched few youtube videos about Andrew's case (again) and scrolled through comments.
Its interesting how people in comments tend to discuss strtanger danger and online, online, online.
All these vids from years years after it happend and obviously the comments. So at the time it was pretty clearly stated that no tracks of Andrew's online activity were found.
+ he had no interest in getting a new phone.
It'd be totally understandable that kid could get convinced to keep some sort of relationship online a secret. Sure yes. BUT seriously how would that stranger online relationship even began? Should happen DURING some online activities, right? Yet none found. So it would have to be secret all the way even before... why? What reason for that? Just cause it could happen, just cause its possible does not justify taking it as likely scenario.
How it even happened that in over 18 years theory that Andrew was lured to London by someone who lived in or visited Doncaster on regular basis didnt grew into the most probable?

Isnt that, at the end of the day the most likely scenario?
He was going somewhere. Something related to gaming, a concert, museum, basically ANY source of entertainment like that, any event like that would have dozens of hundreds of people WITH CAMERAS to memorise that special moment. It was barely afternoon. Broad daylight. Lots of bad things may happen and coincidence is possible, but its so much more unlikely when oddities and unusuals preceed. This case got such an exposure, yet nobody came forward with confident sighting of Andrew at any special event on 14th. Nobody caught him on their pics from there that we know of (and by confident.
Parents were able to provide some ideas as where he could go in London. They actually had more than a few! So they could maybe imagine that. But neither them or cops came up with good idea where and why could he go if London was just on the way to somewhere.
But in this context it almost doesnt really matter. Cause like two basic options here: either he was heading somewhere farther, not in London - or he was heading to some kind of event in London. First option almost certainly mean that he wanted to meet someone, and second... kinda implies same thing: either he was going to meet someone in London (and thats why he hasnt showed up anywhere) or he thought hes gonna go on that event with that person but that wasnt what that other person's plan.

Andrew had multiple family members in London. Was going to visit them with his fam pretty often. Thats a great reason to feel safe meeting someone in London. Cause first - it would feel safeish cause itd be in a way similar to visiting his family, and second - that means that there was an option to go and see some of those fam members later that day.

Can really get a clear impression of what kind of person he was. Was he planning things in advance - maybe not exactly planning-in-details, but planning some elements of the task that awaited?
That may be not super probable, but came to my mind now. Maybe that walk home from school wasnt cause of bullying at all but attempt to make sure that he can walk that far and feel fine?

Anyways. I feel like the most probable here is abduction by a NO STRANGER
then abduction by stranger, then accidental death, then abduction by a catfish.

 

[beubeubeu]

If it wasn't an opportunist then I have to wonder if it was someone known to Andrew and his parents. Perhaps one of their connections from London. Trying to be careful what I say. But it's usually someone known to the victim.

His actions and behaviour that day don't point towards suicide, in my opinion. The new life theory is ridiculous and unrealistic.

If it was an oportunist that oportunist would have to strike before Andrew reached his destination... unless it was something really random or the idea was just to wander around London for a bit.

Why careful? Is it wrong to say? There is not even a specific person who could be theoretically suspected of this while discussing online, but... itnt that also the least likely "group" to look at?
Kid goes missing. So family members are suspected. Family cleared/unlikely? Then predators in the area. Bullies. Mental issues. Local creeps. Some people he met while away from home on that program thing. Online creeps. Voluntary disappearance - with which he would absolutely need some prolonged serious support to build up an extremely challenging sustainability under new identity.
Everyone, every source insists that Andrew was smart. Maybe not street smart (but people from healthy loving homes are rarely street smart at this age) but very bright. But then it all circles back into insisting that something terrible must happened cause he made poor choices, was naive, maybe blinded by excitement of going on a concert (why? if he was doing that with his dad on regular anyway) or something else that smart kid living in his reality could easily get without much trouble (had money to get new psp, had plenty of opportunities to get permission to visit London on weekend and maybe even get money for the ticket... and so on).
Sure yes, 14yo boy wont be as mature and wise as an adult (especially not as adult version of himself would be) BUT it kinda smells like 10yo logic, not 14yo logic more than I think about these possibilities presented.

Is it really that crazy or inappropriate to theorize that Andrew may fell into a trap made by someone who got others around him (or maybe her, but more likely him) fell for too?
And that would be someone who was there. In Doncaster. But also often elsewhere, maybe in London, maybe even bit farther than London.

 

[beubeubeu]

Also... not really sure if I see this in any scenario, but one of the dangers that kid skipping school is taking, especially a "good" kid like that (cause "wilder" kid may not care) would be meeting some adult that he knows his parents know.
Then all whats needed to get that kid silently follow and get into the car would be "what are you doing here? youre in trouble, I have to take you home!". If a stranger wants to drag you into their vehicle you have the luxury of full awareness that YOU ARE IN DANGER while kid, in horror scenario like that is completely trapped.