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

[vagab0nd]

How do you know he had little interest in dating? I know what we've been told about Andrew and I think his family knew him well but most teenagers don't share everything with their parents and Andrew's disappearance proves that.

In my mind, Andrew would only lose his no absence status for something very important to him. Regardless, I just feel he communicated with somebody who harmed him.

Comments from classmates. The dating scene in Europe is completely different to the US. Most of my friends in America lost their virginity before 16 and my husband's British friends never even fathomed dating or kissing at 14.

 

[submarine7]

His father wondered and even spoke about the possibility of him being gay and made a point of saying he was cool with that if so. That probably didn't come out of nowhere.

Well, he could have been interested in dating boys and an older, ill intentioned individual could have catfished him. I keep landing on this conclusion because I cannot come up with another idea that lives with what we know.

The fact his body has never been found leads me there too. It seems like whatever was on the other end had a solid plan and this is why nothing has been found.

JMO and I wish he were out there but I don't believe he is. His dad breaks my heart and I wish he could get some answers.

 

[submarine7]

Comments from classmates. The dating scene in Europe is completely different to the US. Most of my friends in America lost their virginity before 16 and my husband's British friends never even fathomed dating or kissing at 14.

I may be wrong but with so little info it's all I can think that fits with what we know. Kids may be shy at that age but if a girl or boy pursued them, they might feel differently. If this case was one of misadventure or suicide, Andrew's body would have turned up. I think it's concealed on private property and maybe outside of London.

 

[submarine7]

But how did he communicate? It wasn't online. It wasn't via post. I'm not convinced.

I'm not fully convinced he didn't have an online presence although I don't know how or where that happened but it's the only way I can imagine he went to London that day. Also, it seems LE may not have been 100% convinced he wasn't online or they wouldn't have asked his classmates if any of them had played games online with Andrew.

 

[vagab0nd]

I'm not fully convinced he didn't have an online presence although I don't know how or where that happened but it's the only way I can imagine he went to London that day. Also, it seems LE may not have been 100% convinced he wasn't online or they wouldn't have asked his classmates if any of them had played games online with Andrew.

I think LE asked the classmates as standard practice. My roommate was murdered and she had just got her first job post-grad in forensic science. Police asked me and her friends and her family if she had a relationship online or outside of work with her killer. One of the questions was like "we found no Linkedin profile for her. Do you know if she had one?" It's not a special question.

 

[vagab0nd]

I just spent 20 mins walking around Kings Cross waiting for my platform to be announced on the board and my god. Two people who looked like they were on meth and claiming to be homeless came up asking me to buy newspapers off them so they could have money for a place to sleep. One of the people showed me her weird tattoo of a teletubbie holding a mushroom. I was polite and they weren't persistent when I said no thanks. They weren't scary and I wasn't afraid because I was in a public place, but I can imagine someone like that coming up to Andrew and him being too awkward to say no.

 

[beubeubeu]

Here's some statistics: Fraud Act 2006 - Explanatory Notes

Not chat gpt you say. Then what? Google Studio AI?

His father wondered and even spoke about the possibility of him being gay and made a point of saying he was cool with that if so. That probably didn't come out of nowhere.

This absolutely could come out of nowhere. Its a valid possibility to consider relying on statistic as struggle with sexual identity and fear of rejection by family is causing a struggle in young people and relatively often is a cause to try run away.

But how did he communicate? It wasn't online. It wasn't via post. I'm not convinced.

With his mouth. Or maybe up to some point by phone. One of those lost ones, or maybe some another phone family wasnt aware of. It doesnt have to be fully blown dating or daily contact, n

Comments from classmates.

Sure. Cause thats who knows best if a shy, introverted kid is dating, wants to date or have an love interest. Classmates. Same classmates who couldnt provide pretty much anything about Andrew according to the reports and who werent considered close to him or his friends?
That indicates nothing, maybe apart from pretty solid assumption that even if Andrew had some love interest or was dating, he wasnt openly dating anyone from school.

The dating scene in Europe is completely different to the US. Most of my friends in America lost their virginity before 16 and my husband's British friends never even fathomed dating or kissing at 14.

Dont know about dating scene in US but it depends on the person more than on the "general scene" Id think. I knew people who were having sex at 16, who were kissing at 14 and dating at 12. That dating didnt neccessarily meant having sex or even kissing, could be just talking and doing stuff together. Completely innocent stuff. As far as I remember more often it was emotionally "serious" but not on the level of kissing yet. Some people were hugging and going places together (could be even going to church together) openly, others were very shy and were talking about it only with closest friends or only told about it at some point, as they felt it became "serious". Other kids were making super clear and obvious that theyre totally dating someone, but there was nothing going on between them, they just wanted to appear cool as the ones who are already dating.
Big variety. My friend was dating a guy who she was seeing only once a week, or once in two weeks. No internet, just texting. There was also sneaking exchange of handwritten notes in school.

There is no need for long term, serious, physical relationship to consider that someone was interested in dating. As little as talking a bit, feeling "in love" and wanting to meet in a special way that appeared just recently also counts as "having interest in dating". May be no time yet to share news about it with anyone, may be still before first, real, serious date.

 

[beubeubeu]

I'm not fully convinced he didn't have an online presence although I don't know how or where that happened but it's the only way I can imagine he went to London that day. Also, it seems LE may not have been 100% convinced he wasn't online or they wouldn't have asked his classmates if any of them had played games online with Andrew.

They 100% werent sure about it in the beginning and had to ask questions and wait for data - as they got both and havent found any traces of his online activities they were able to rule out the PSP, sister's laptop, school computers and library computers.
BUT there were same people who with whatever God forsaken reason didnt run to secure as much surveillance as possible the moment they learned that Andrew went to London and only got interested in that as it was too late. Also allegedly suspected his dad's involvement. Why? How? Wasnt it like the easiest thing possible to verify if he was or wasnt at work and go further right away? Yet it took them some time.
100% confidence isnt possible. Cause how well they checked? Were they able to thoroughly check everything for real? Even if answers to both questions is: thoroughly, then there is still an option they missed something. Or that Andrew was using internet for a bit, for some time, then quit. That also happens. Lets say meeting someone offline, then staying in touch online, then getting into misunderstanding or a fight, then missing that person a lot & deciding to go and meet them, or counting on hope to reconsile, going there, being caught on countless cameras that didnt got checked by LE in time. Then being harmed by that person or unexpectedly ending up alone in wrong place, wrong time. Many things are possible when there is so little known.

 

[vagab0nd]

They 100% werent sure about it in the beginning and had to ask questions and wait for data - as they got both and havent found any traces of his online activities they were able to rule out the PSP, sister's laptop, school computers and library computers.
BUT there were same people who with whatever God forsaken reason didnt run to secure as much surveillance as possible the moment they learned that Andrew went to London and only got interested in that as it was too late. Also allegedly suspected his dad's involvement. Why? How? Wasnt it like the easiest thing possible to verify if he was or wasnt at work and go further right away? Yet it took them some time.
100% confidence isnt possible. Cause how well they checked? Were they able to thoroughly check everything for real? Even if answers to both questions is: thoroughly, then there is still an option they missed something. Or that Andrew was using internet for a bit, for some time, then quit. That also happens. Lets say meeting someone offline, then staying in touch online, then getting into misunderstanding or a fight, then missing that person a lot & deciding to go and meet them, or counting on hope to reconsile, going there, being caught on countless cameras that didnt got checked by LE in time. Then being harmed by that person or unexpectedly ending up alone in wrong place, wrong time. Many things are possible when there is so little known.

The LE that viewed the security footage were a different team to those that checked his online history. Also a different LE investigated his father.

 

[vagab0nd]

I'm not fully convinced he didn't have an online presence although I don't know how or where that happened but it's the only way I can imagine he went to London that day. Also, it seems LE may not have been 100% convinced he wasn't online or they wouldn't have asked his classmates if any of them had played games online with Andrew.

If you aren't convinced that he wasn't online then try to Google for something relating back to him. Try waybackmachine or something. Doubt you'll find anything.

 

[vagab0nd]

Not chat gpt you say. Then what? Google Studio AI?

This absolutely could come out of nowhere. Its a valid possibility to consider relying on statistic as struggle with sexual identity and fear of rejection by family is causing a struggle in young people and relatively often is a cause to try run away.

With his mouth. Or maybe up to some point by phone. One of those lost ones, or maybe some another phone family wasnt aware of. It doesnt have to be fully blown dating or daily contact, n

Sure. Cause thats who knows best if a shy, introverted kid is dating, wants to date or have an love interest. Classmates. Same classmates who couldnt provide pretty much anything about Andrew according to the reports and who werent considered close to him or his friends?
That indicates nothing, maybe apart from pretty solid assumption that even if Andrew had some love interest or was dating, he wasnt openly dating anyone from school.

Dont know about dating scene in US but it depends on the person more than on the "general scene" Id think. I knew people who were having sex at 16, who were kissing at 14 and dating at 12. That dating didnt neccessarily meant having sex or even kissing, could be just talking and doing stuff together. Completely innocent stuff. As far as I remember more often it was emotionally "serious" but not on the level of kissing yet. Some people were hugging and going places together (could be even going to church together) openly, others were very shy and were talking about it only with closest friends or only told about it at some point, as they felt it became "serious". Other kids were making super clear and obvious that theyre totally dating someone, but there was nothing going on between them, they just wanted to appear cool as the ones who are already dating.
Big variety. My friend was dating a guy who she was seeing only once a week, or once in two weeks. No internet, just texting. There was also sneaking exchange of handwritten notes in school.

There is no need for long term, serious, physical relationship to consider that someone was interested in dating. As little as talking a bit, feeling "in love" and wanting to meet in a special way that appeared just recently also counts as "having interest in dating". May be no time yet to share news about it with anyone, may be still before first, real, serious date.

The family would have noticed the phone. I bought an iPod Touch when it first came out with my first paycheck and my mom noticed and made a comment of like, "When did you buy that?" They would not turn a blind eye to something as such.

 

[SilentHill]

No it wasnt "physically impossible". Plenty of people were going for work in UK and about half of them got cheated or scammed at least once with the job being not legal instead of legal + then preying on people who didnt have a choice or enough money to get back. Indeed it was happening much less in UK than in other countries but it certainly was happening.

Without links you should be making it clear that your posts are your opinions only and not facts.

 

[submarine7]

They 100% werent sure about it in the beginning and had to ask questions and wait for data - as they got both and havent found any traces of his online activities they were able to rule out the PSP, sister's laptop, school computers and library computers.
BUT there were same people who with whatever God forsaken reason didnt run to secure as much surveillance as possible the moment they learned that Andrew went to London and only got interested in that as it was too late. Also allegedly suspected his dad's involvement. Why? How? Wasnt it like the easiest thing possible to verify if he was or wasnt at work and go further right away? Yet it took them some time.
100% confidence isnt possible. Cause how well they checked? Were they able to thoroughly check everything for real? Even if answers to both questions is: thoroughly, then there is still an option they missed something. Or that Andrew was using internet for a bit, for some time, then quit. That also happens. Lets say meeting someone offline, then staying in touch online, then getting into misunderstanding or a fight, then missing that person a lot & deciding to go and meet them, or counting on hope to reconsile, going there, being caught on countless cameras that didnt got checked by LE in time. Then being harmed by that person or unexpectedly ending up alone in wrong place, wrong time. Many things are possible when there is so little known.

Yes to this. Also, I think we can factor in room for error on any forensics because it was in its infancy at the time. It's such a shame they focused on his father and failed to secure additional footage of Andrew. As it stands, you're right there's not enough information so anything seems possible.

 

[The Zookeeper]

I don’t know if this has previously been brought up, but I wonder if Andrew was threatened by an adult that was preying on him. Someone he knew and had contact with in his life. This person may have told him to miss school and go to London to meet him. He may have told him that if he didn’t, he would hurt his family, etc. That would explain why Andrew was willing to ruin his perfect attendance record, why he didn’t tell his parents. I wonder if police looked in to who in Andrew’s life missed work that day or was unaccounted for that day. It could even have been a teacher or someone who worked at his school. A neighbor, someone from church. Even an acquaintance. Maybe even related to why he didn’t want to ride the bus. This person could have met up with Andrew and then harmed him. This person may have a 2nd residence or have family with a home he had access to. A place where he was able to take Andrew to and harm him.

 

[vagab0nd]

Yes to this. Also, I think we can factor in room for error on any forensics because it was in its infancy at the time. It's such a shame they focused on his father and failed to secure additional footage of Andrew. As it stands, you're right there's not enough information so anything seems possible.

If it was in its infancy then why did American police find anything and everything online for the 1999 Columbine killers? They found GeoCities cites and all sorts of things. A lot of which has been screenshotted or preserved so you can still see it on acolumbinesite I think it's called. There have been countless other cases pre-2007 in the US and EU where internet history has been found for all sorts of cases. Why couldn't they find Andrew's? Doesn't make sense. I'm inclined to heavily believe he didn't have one.

 

[vagab0nd]

I don’t know if this has previously been brought up, but I wonder if Andrew was threatened by an adult that was preying on him. Someone he knew and had contact with in his life. This person may have told him to miss school and go to London to meet him. He may have told him that if he didn’t, he would hurt his family, etc. That would explain why Andrew was willing to ruin his perfect attendance record, why he didn’t tell his parents. I wonder if police looked in to who in Andrew’s life missed work that day or was unaccounted for that day. It could even have been a teacher or someone who worked at his school. A neighbor, someone from church. Even an acquaintance. Maybe even related to why he didn’t want to ride the bus. This person could have met up with Andrew and then harmed him. This person may have a 2nd residence or have family with a home he had access to. A place where he was able to take Andrew to and harm him.

If someone told me at 14 that they were going to harm my family I'd never believe them. There's just no way because murder hasn't occured in my hometown since the 1800s. I grew up in a town of 300 people where nobody owns a gun. It's one of the only towns in the US where there is no crime and there's only one police officer whose been doing the job since 1978. There's no way anyone would get away with it. I would assume that if anyone said that to Andrew he would tell his parents. He may have been secretive in some things, but definitely not that.

 

[vagab0nd]

If it was in its infancy then why did American police find anything and everything online for the 1999 Columbine killers? They found GeoCities cites and all sorts of things. A lot of which has been screenshotted or preserved so you can still see it on acolumbinesite I think it's called. There have been countless other cases pre-2007 in the US and EU where internet history has been found for all sorts of cases. Why couldn't they find Andrew's? Doesn't make sense. I'm inclined to heavily believe he didn't have one.

To add: Eric Harris' webpages - REB's DOOM, Rebel Clan, WADs, and journals

They even have Eric's AOL history. It's so detailed and yet nothing for Andrew. So highly unlikely he was online.

 

[ChatteringBirds]

To be fair, there is a huge difference between authorities in America being really motivated to get forensic information about these school shooters and the police who were initially investigating Andrew's case, who were more interested in interrogating his family than in searching thoroughly for him. IMO.

 

[vagab0nd]

To be fair, there is a huge difference between authorities in America being really motivated to get forensic information about these school shooters and the police who were initially investigating Andrew's case, who were more interested in interrogating his family than in searching thoroughly for him. IMO.

Even so my online history from 2007 still has some things online that I cannot get removed like forum posts. Surely someone would've found that for Andrew by now.

 

[beubeubeu]

Without links you should be making it clear that your posts are your opinions only and not facts.

Really? Links to back up that UK had a major issue with people working illegally or being forced to work illegally in 2000's while discussing someone who's (MY OPINION!) repeatedly using AI to write their post for them and claiming that getting illegal job in UK was impossible?

Here you go:

British political economist, Philippe Legrain's article from 2007:
UK crackdown on illegal workers is misguided and won’t work : Philippe Legrain
Illegal Working, Migrants and Labour Exploitation in the UK
https://www.jstor.org/stable/48561050
2004, example of major disaster with 22+ illegal workers dead
Morecambe Bay cockling disaster - Wikipedia
2005, highest estimate mentioned as 570.000 people being illegally in UK - requires a link to prove that some of them were working, otherwise its just my opinion they werent living on air?
430,000 illegal immigrants in UK
Illegal immigrants working for Home Office in 2005
Illegal immigrants worked for Home Office
Example of this still going on more than 10 years later:
Man jailed for Sainsbury's illegal migrant cleaners scheme
From 2006, debate about a potential amnesty for an estimated 500k illegal workers
Amnesty offers fresh start on immigration
Employers of illegal workers failing to pay fines - article from 2010
Employers of illegal workers failing to pay fines
2015, still going on
Illegal immigration: Minister pledges crackdown on 'rogue employers'

Should I provide more? Spend few hours or organising it better? Dig for examples that what was also a struggle that some UK citizens had to struggle with if unfortunate enough that they couldnt find a legal job but had to survive so they were taking what they could get?