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

[vagab0nd]

I suspect this was for more than just calling someone that, to be fair. (Sorry this was supposed to be a quote about calling someone a f*ckwit)

Not sure. It's all my husband knew about the guy and nobody else had anything bad to say about him except he liked calling people feckwits for some reason.

 

[vagab0nd]

This isn't true. Most of us take school buses. Some in cities go on public buses. Not that it's a big deal, but it's a point.

He could've taken a school coach, but I think someone said somewhere it was a public bus.

 

[vagab0nd]

I'm sorry to hear about your friend. I'm in the UK and haven't heard about this case; can you tell me more please?

I don't think a child will have been expelled for minor bullying alone. There will have been more to it. I never saw any bullying going on at my school but that didn't mean it didn't happen. It happened to me.
Sorry for all the posts. I'm new to this and can't figure out how to put all my comments in one post.

I think about Andrew a lot, and his poor family. Two women disappeared from my village: one was found in the river years later, and the other was found murdered by a crazy man. It is frightening how common it is for people to disappear, but children in particular makes me feel sick.

There's a Channel 4 documentary about it called, Poisoned.

 

[vagab0nd]

This is a bit of an odd post because I think most children at 14 would have found it very easy to believe their family would be harmed if they were threatened. It's an easy way to get to break a child. You don't know what he was secretive about.

I don't know, maybe. Every child is different. I know at age 9 when people were asking me a/s/l I'd lie and say I was from Germany. If anyone said anything inappropriate I'd tell them to go off themselves. I was a very aware child but also very naive. Even now there's no way I'd believe a stranger if they said they were going to harm my family, but then again this is coming from a woman who loved 70s horror films when I was 7 and they inspired me to get a film degree rather than be afraid of chainsaws.

 

[vagab0nd]

Thank you Ellymoo. I also disagree with Vagabond that Andrew wouldn’t have believed that his family might be harmed. Not all children’s personalities are the same. I was a child who definitely would have believed that my family would be harmed if someone had threatened me that they would. I would have done whatever that person had told me to do in order to protect my family. So I think it’s very narrow-minded to dismiss the possibility based on one’s own belief that they wouldn’t have believed it. None of us know what Andrew thought or would have believed. At this point, all ideas and theories are possibilities.

But who is going to harm his family? And why did his family never receive threats themselves after he went missing or before? Look at other cases where ransom notes have been left or taunting messages have been received. We have had radio silence.

 

[Ellymoo]

But who is going to harm his family? And why did his family never receive threats themselves after he went missing or before? Look at other cases where ransom notes have been left or taunting messages have been received. We have had radio silence.

Nobody was, necessarily. I just know that would have been a very good way of getting me to do what you wanted: threatening to hurt someone I loved. It's all conjecture anyway.

 

[Ellymoo]

Not sure. It's all my husband knew about the guy and nobody else had anything bad to say about him except he liked calling people feckwits for some reason.

I thought a boy at my school had been expelled for telling a teacher to f*ck off... It turned out that this was one of many, many reasons that we weren't privy to at the time.. It would take a lot more than that to expel someone, even 30 odd years ago.

 

[beubeubeu]

Ive made a summary of info from an interview with Andrew's dad (link).

Andrew was comfortable around people of all ages, may be bit more into company of adults.
Quit scouting year before cause he didnt liked weekly meetings but enjoyed campings.
He was incredibly enthusiastic about the young gifted program he was in.
He had neutral attitude about school, didnt saw it as enough of a challenge.
He had small group of friends in school and occasionally was meeting with them after.
Teachers described him as shy and quiet but mature above his age.
He's deaf in one ear and needs strong prescription glasses.
He was given couple of mobile phones but barely used them and refused when family offered him another one.
Summer holidays 2007, few weeks before he disappeared - he refused to go to London and stay with his grandma for a bit.
Week before the disappearance he walked back home instead of taking a bus, it was nice afternoon according to his dad. Just once.
Nothing odd in his behavior in days prior.
Morning of September 14 was odd, he overslept about 20 mins and was irritable. He said that he didnt hear the alarm.
8:05 he left home, said "see ya later" to his dad and left home as usual, but instead of going on bus stop he went to withdraw money from his account.
Went back home, left his school clothes like usual after coming back from school.
Changed into normal clothes, didnt took a jacket or any other clothes, just a bag.
8:30 he left home the second time.
He didnt took charger or additional money he had in his room.
He took his house key.
He bought a ticket to London for 31.40, refused to pay another 0,50 for returning ticket.
9:35 he went into the train alone.
In the train he was focused on playing his PSP.
11:20 arrived at Kings Cross, 11:25 last "sighting" on surveillance.
His family's best guess was that he went to London cause of something what was happening there specifically on that Friday.
He had grandparents, aunt, uncle and multiple family friends in London and could show up at.
The fact that he travelled to London was discovered 3 days later as the ticket selling lady came to report her sighting.
His dad was not surprised that he refused returning ticket as it could be just assumption that parents will buy it for him (possibly other family members).
Another three weeks passed before Andrew was spotted at King's Cross surveillance, only after local investigator travelled to London and checked it by himself, cause London's police claimed that they couldnt spot him there.
His PSP wasnt at any point connected to the internet.
As far as Andrew's sister knew, he wasnt interested in social media or connecting with people over the internet.
He used her computer only couple of times.
His possible access to other computers was pretty limited.
He was very familiar with London's transport system and could easily navigate his way around the city.
One of his favorite tv shows was "The fall and rise of Reginald Perrin" but he liked a lot of classic British shows.
He was very close to his sister and could confide in her, his dad believes that he had all the reasons to feel safe to do so and believe that she wouldnt tell parents if he asked her not to.
Police failed Andrew and his family repeatedly and detrimentally to the investigation.
Woman reported seeing Andrew at the Pizza Hut at Oxford street (same street where majority of tech stores were and where launch of new PSP happened just the midnight before!) and cops failed to contact her for 6 weeks.
Mom and sister spoke to the waitress at Pizza Hut and in their opinion the description she delivered fitted Andrew perfectly.
Another lady reported seeing him in Covent Garden and have a short conversation with him, same story - sounded very plausible to the family, unfollowed by cops for long enough to have CCTV overwritten.
Another sighting came about a boy fitting Andrew's descriprion sleeping in a park in Southwark.

Thats how it looks on the map - so definitely within walking distance but neither of these sightings were check in time to verify their accuracy by CCTV.

There were reports of someone matching his description exiting a local train from Waterloo to Mortlake Station on September 19th but then that person was wearing some warmer clothes.

On the evening of November 2008 someone visited Leominster police station in Herefordshire and used telecom to talk to an officer, he claimed that he has info on wherabouts of Andrew.
The man "vanished" before officer actually came to him.
Someone claiming to be same man wrote anonymous letter to the BBC, listing possible sighting of Andrew in Shrewsbury in November.

Its not confirmed if it indeed was same man.
Andrew's dad saw the letter and feels skeptical about it, cause it was so vague it havent delivered any actual info to follow up.

People are contacting Andrew's family claiming to be him and trying to get some money from them.

Cops seemed to be notoriously NOT checking the alleged sighting of Andrew in time.
Andrew mentioned liking one girl in school and not having the confidence to speak to her.
Possibility of him being gay and struggling with his sexuality came as just a thing to consider, there was nothing to indicate that.
Dad feels that they havent gave him a reason to doubt that he would be nothing but loved and accepted as homosexual.
Gay community was helpful and supportive but they werent able to deliver any info.

In 2011 family payed a private company to search the river and the body was found but it wasnt Andrew.
Only in 2017 investigation was, in Andrew's dad opinion taken seriously and things really started to get done.
Then some attention got brought to Alex Slolely's disappearance: Alex was 16, going on 17, close to his family, bright and talented, on his way back home from friend's house. Quickly reported missing but in his case CCTV also wasnt checked in time and the investigation was taken even less seriously.

June 2017 - someone reported having an online conversation with someone complaining about being left by their partner and missing 200 pounds to pay rent. The person was willing to send that money and asked for a bank account, after which they got informed that there is none cause they left home at 14 and dont have an account. That individual was never found, but he used a nick "AndrewRoo" (Rue? Roon?) - the nickname that family gave to Andrew. As far as they could remember they never shared that info publicly and was known only to family and friends.
There was an attempt to locate the user, but due to technical issues from the platform it was unsuccessful.
It sounded as the most plausible lead in 10 years for the family so they went to look and ask in the user's then-listed location but again, nothing came of it.

Person claimed to be working in a shop. Andrew's dad doesnt express any doubts in the possibility of someone without bank account, insurance and so on having a job, they just figured it must be one of the smaller stores so thats where they focused on.

Family put additional 100 pounds on his account but it was never accessed.

Andrew was a very tidy person, kept his room very tidy.

Andrew's grandparents gave him a stamp album and lots of stamps - he never mentioned it at home, never showed it to anyone, but he kept it well organized. Dad found it during the pandemic cleaning and brought that up on facebook, only then learning that Andrew took it to school and showed to his friends.

 

[beubeubeu]

I wish that someone asked Andrew's family what was his attitude towards having a mobile phone. Was he excited about it at first? At all? Easy to get in touch with? Did he ever expressed a dislike towards it being sort of a leech?

Some people are like that, even to this day, refusing to own a smartphone or mobile phone at all - or they do, but they keep it at home and use only at home, like it was oldschool phone with a cable. Some are concerned with the technology and possibility of being traced at all times, some see it as a boundary like its my time, my space, if you need something then tell me this in person if its so important. Today it requires a lot of dedication to keep that prefference without making your daily life significantly harder but 19 years ago? Much more common.

Im leaning towards the possibility of Andrew still owning a phone. Maybe he genuinely lost one (or two) but then felt relieved that he doesnt have it. Then MAYBE he lost another one, told his parents, got bit of scolding about it, then found it and figured that oh, whatever, I dont want to be called or texted when Im focused on doing something so Im not gonna tell that I found it.

After watching that interviev several times Im willing to rule out the possibility of Andrew going to London on a concert. Concerts are EVENING events. He could almost certainly just ask/beg his dad for a permission and (possibly money) to go and go there straight after school, then stay with grandma for a weekend or with some other family member/family friend.
That dad doesnt seem like the type that would say no seeing that his kid really really wants it, he wasnt against it in general, supported his passions an likings... and that would not only NOT interrupted his school schedule but also like... no trouble at all. Why go for trouble if you can have something you want without it? Smart kid would not act this way (imo).

Just my impression but it paints me a pretty solid picture.
Nothing odd, nothing unusual, nothing out of the norm... up to the morning of September 14th.
Then Andrew oversleeps.
Why people oversleep? People with schedules as tight as going to school/work every morning?
One possibility - cause theyre sick. But nothing points at Andrew possibly feeling/being sick.
The other, most likely and (imo) most common reason is CAUSE THEY FELL ASLEEP MUCH LATER THAN USUAL.
Why would Andrew fell asleep much later than usual without a reason noticeable to his family?

Maybe cause he was overthinking something. Maybe. But then he would have to have that reason for overthinking known to him before. Yet it didnt show.

Possibilities are endless but what fits here the most (imo) is that the evening before he wasnt aware yet that hes not gonna go to school on Friday.

Family believes in the credibility of Pizza Hut sighting. That Pizza Hut was located very near the store where the big new PSP promotion was going on.
That makes it most probable for me that he went there in some connection to the premiere. Like he was texting with someone about it and decided to go in the morning.
Dad puts no weight on the returning ticket refusal. Why pay 50p and likely just lose that 50p if he didnt knew when he will be going back and had all the reasons to assume that he will have that covered by the family (either transport or returning ticket cost).

Covent garden also sounds plausible. But what then? Why sleeping on a bench while having so many people to just spend a night at? Its statistically impossible for all or even majority of the sightings being accurate, especially in city as big as London. Also hard to believe that none was accurate. Especially that first two got absolutely confirmed. All came from women who tend to be more observant. Also a waitress. Pizza Hut sigting either came from waitress or was additionally confirmed by a waitress. Waitresses tend to and kinda have to have just excellent memory, the have to be observant and they are kinda in constant training. They use and master their skills in remembering stuff precisely on daily basis as their work and possible tips (surely even whole sucess of a business relies pretty strongly on waitresses being nice, talkative, observant and remembering their clients).
This to me puts a lot of additional "weight" of this sighting's validity.

Close to King's Cross where he 100% was.
Right timing.
He might have a good reason to go there - close to the places he liked and close to the biggest store in whole country that set PSP premiere that day.
And the witness being a waitress.

But then it all just fells apart in being confusing again. Was he waiting to meet someone? Waiting for them to finish their workday possibly?
Just wandering around London for days would hint at some possible mental breakdown but these later sightings are less detailed, seemingly consistently not followed on or even attempted to verify by cops via CCTV.

I dont know.

But I feel that Alex's case is connected at least in a way that that whoever harmed him had a chance to learn from Andrew's case.
Much younger kid, looking like a kid, decent coverage, sloppy cops, lazy work, far from acting in timely manner, took them months to reach to people who were giving them their reports.
Alex was a bigger guy, without taking a closer look he could easily pass as an adult and was dark skinned.
Could be totally expected that hes gonna get much lower priority and much less attention than Andrew. And what Andrew got?
With Alex its unknown what path did he choosed. Where he went. Straight home? To a groccery store on the ay to grab something? To another friend's house to maybe borrow something on the way home? M a n y possibilities. Could be several different streets, with an hour or evrn few hours range.
vs Andrew. With the location and timing narrowed down to freaking MINUTES.
Got into the train to London. Was on that train to London. Would be just minutes to check on this station and maybe like a two or three before. M I N U T E S. They had exact records to a minute when that train was there and when people from the train were exiting stations.
Yet they managed to miss him and not bothered to check again till a cop from Doncaster showed up. But they got sighting reports before that and also havent checked it. Fully aware that CCTV will record over it.
It was like sending a message to predators, reassuring them that theyre gonna be safe cause the incredible tools available to help solve such case are just notoriously not used properly.

 

[vagab0nd]

I wish that someone asked Andrew's family what was his attitude towards having a mobile phone. Was he excited about it at first? At all? Easy to get in touch with? Did he ever expressed a dislike towards it being sort of a leech?

Some people are like that, even to this day, refusing to own a smartphone or mobile phone at all - or they do, but they keep it at home and use only at home, like it was oldschool phone with a cable. Some are concerned with the technology and possibility of being traced at all times, some see it as a boundary like its my time, my space, if you need something then tell me this in person if its so important. Today it requires a lot of dedication to keep that prefference without making your daily life significantly harder but 19 years ago? Much more common.

Im leaning towards the possibility of Andrew still owning a phone. Maybe he genuinely lost one (or two) but then felt relieved that he doesnt have it. Then MAYBE he lost another one, told his parents, got bit of scolding about it, then found it and figured that oh, whatever, I dont want to be called or texted when Im focused on doing something so Im not gonna tell that I found it.

After watching that interviev several times Im willing to rule out the possibility of Andrew going to London on a concert. Concerts are EVENING events. He could almost certainly just ask/beg his dad for a permission and (possibly money) to go and go there straight after school, then stay with grandma for a weekend or with some other family member/family friend.
That dad doesnt seem like the type that would say no seeing that his kid really really wants it, he wasnt against it in general, supported his passions an likings... and that would not only NOT interrupted his school schedule but also like... no trouble at all. Why go for trouble if you can have something you want without it? Smart kid would not act this way (imo).

Just my impression but it paints me a pretty solid picture.
Nothing odd, nothing unusual, nothing out of the norm... up to the morning of September 14th.
Then Andrew oversleeps.
Why people oversleep? People with schedules as tight as going to school/work every morning?
One possibility - cause theyre sick. But nothing points at Andrew possibly feeling/being sick.
The other, most likely and (imo) most common reason is CAUSE THEY FELL ASLEEP MUCH LATER THAN USUAL.
Why would Andrew fell asleep much later than usual without a reason noticeable to his family?

Maybe cause he was overthinking something. Maybe. But then he would have to have that reason for overthinking known to him before. Yet it didnt show.

Possibilities are endless but what fits here the most (imo) is that the evening before he wasnt aware yet that hes not gonna go to school on Friday.

Family believes in the credibility of Pizza Hut sighting. That Pizza Hut was located very near the store where the big new PSP promotion was going on.
That makes it most probable for me that he went there in some connection to the premiere. Like he was texting with someone about it and decided to go in the morning.
Dad puts no weight on the returning ticket refusal. Why pay 50p and likely just lose that 50p if he didnt knew when he will be going back and had all the reasons to assume that he will have that covered by the family (either transport or returning ticket cost).

Covent garden also sounds plausible. But what then? Why sleeping on a bench while having so many people to just spend a night at? Its statistically impossible for all or even majority of the sightings being accurate, especially in city as big as London. Also hard to believe that none was accurate. Especially that first two got absolutely confirmed. All came from women who tend to be more observant. Also a waitress. Pizza Hut sigting either came from waitress or was additionally confirmed by a waitress. Waitresses tend to and kinda have to have just excellent memory, the have to be observant and they are kinda in constant training. They use and master their skills in remembering stuff precisely on daily basis as their work and possible tips (surely even whole sucess of a business relies pretty strongly on waitresses being nice, talkative, observant and remembering their clients).
This to me puts a lot of additional "weight" of this sighting's validity.

Close to King's Cross where he 100% was.
Right timing.
He might have a good reason to go there - close to the places he liked and close to the biggest store in whole country that set PSP premiere that day.
And the witness being a waitress.

But then it all just fells apart in being confusing again. Was he waiting to meet someone? Waiting for them to finish their workday possibly?
Just wandering around London for days would hint at some possible mental breakdown but these later sightings are less detailed, seemingly consistently not followed on or even attempted to verify by cops via CCTV.

I dont know.

But I feel that Alex's case is connected at least in a way that that whoever harmed him had a chance to learn from Andrew's case.
Much younger kid, looking like a kid, decent coverage, sloppy cops, lazy work, far from acting in timely manner, took them months to reach to people who were giving them their reports.
Alex was a bigger guy, without taking a closer look he could easily pass as an adult and was dark skinned.
Could be totally expected that hes gonna get much lower priority and much less attention than Andrew. And what Andrew got?
With Alex its unknown what path did he choosed. Where he went. Straight home? To a groccery store on the ay to grab something? To another friend's house to maybe borrow something on the way home? M a n y possibilities. Could be several different streets, with an hour or evrn few hours range.
vs Andrew. With the location and timing narrowed down to freaking MINUTES.
Got into the train to London. Was on that train to London. Would be just minutes to check on this station and maybe like a two or three before. M I N U T E S. They had exact records to a minute when that train was there and when people from the train were exiting stations.
Yet they managed to miss him and not bothered to check again till a cop from Doncaster showed up. But they got sighting reports before that and also havent checked it. Fully aware that CCTV will record over it.
It was like sending a message to predators, reassuring them that theyre gonna be safe cause the incredible tools available to help solve such case are just notoriously not used properly.

He was on his parents mobile plan. They could see every text message or MMS being sent. Phone bills back in those days were stacks of paper. Look up iJustine's phone bill. She got like 200 sheets of paper sent to her. My husband says in the UK that his parents could see every single thing he did on his phone purely just from the bill. They'd know what time he texted X number, etc. Andrew's parents have not released any of this data because there might not be any. I don't know. Seems odd.

 

[Inspector Evans]

That's a brilliant summary above.

You can always learn something new when all the knowns are listed. For instance I didn't know that a new PSP had launched the night before. Undeniable he'd have been interested in that given he had taken the PSP he owned.

Was this just an exclusive launch in London or was the product stocked in other U.K cities that Friday?

Also with the potential waitress sighting in Pizza Hut I actually thought the person had just spoken to a Met officer. I didn't realise Andrew's Mum and Sister had travelled down to meet the potential witness so yes knowing his exact mannerisms as family I do think it is interesting they found that account pretty credible.

As ever with these cases very lax from the police as seemingly they'd have never found him on CCTV without private help!

 

[beubeubeu]

Do you mean ICQ and Lycos? Investigators didn't need a login; they used Hard Drive Forensics to find "ghost" fragments of chats hidden in the computer's temporary cache and unallocated space. They then matched the timing of those fragments to ISP connection logs, which proved exactly when a specific house was online or person from x location. Even without an account, these digital "fingerprints" left on the physical hardware made it very difficult to hide activity from a specialized search.

I don't believe for a second that Andrew had some secret online life that can't be traced. We are just stretching because we have no evidence to go off of.

Also, schools have systems to block websites. Even back in 2007 websites were blocked at schools. Maybe Andrew didn't care enough to get around the blocks.

Yeah, many schools were blocking some websites, libraries and internet cafes could do it to.
Out of the many websites that provided chatrooms most were totally mondain, like news websites or music bands websites or hobby websites.
Users had to much more options to connect with other people online that they do now.

Are we having some reasons to assume that ALL was blocked?
Really, are we believing that they next lever, thoroughly searched and cross examined all possible computers while they failed with CCTV so miserably?
Either way, even if they DID searched it all left and right, how on Earth would they cross examine it with any sort of confidence not knowing when exactly Andrew could be accessing internet there?

Searching through a personal device is much easier than trying to find something between 20 or 30 different ones not having much of specific timing to check and dozens on dozens of different users.
This would be just an immense task and not finding anything that would catch the eye only proves that there wasnt anything obvious, not that there wasnt anything at all.
ISP connection logs huh?
Like what would these "ISP connection" logs tell them?
Line of thoughts is just bit unclear to me:

Usage of "Hard Drive Forensics to find "ghost" fragments of chats hidden in the computer's temporary cache and unallocated space" meaning: they would find a chat history.
Switching into checking ISP logs to... check on which computer they found it, who it belongs to and when that person was accessing what kind of online service?
I imagine it being bit redundant.
No need to go for ISP logs unless you have a chat or an email and want to know who was on the other end, who could send that email.
Gibberish made by AI gets funny sometimes.

Anything would be much complicated then than it is now, many things would be doable but we cant forget that they would have multiple devices with a lot of data with unlikely more than a few specific timeframes to check: like on the September 11th Andrew borrowed his sister's laptop for two hours between 5 and 7 PM cause who would be able to provide them with solid timeframes from other computers being (possibly) used by Andrew in August? July? June? April?
ICQ was already vintage in 2007, barely anyone was using it and it would be the second easiest to track (after email exchange) way of communication online.

Maybe if they had AI then and fed them all the info they found on these devices it could notice something. But without it?
Immense amount of data + not much of a clue which part of that data is relevant + possibly some internet cafes being an option + no email found + the fact that they failed to access the right data ten years later when they had a specific user to locate + lack of urgency in LE actions = keeps that window of possibility open: that Andrew WAS staying in touch with someone online.
It may be not super highely likely but considering the circumstances it remains a possibility.

 

[vagab0nd]

That's a brilliant summary above.

You can always learn something new when all the knowns are listed. For instance I didn't know that a new PSP had launched the night before. Undeniable he'd have been interested in that given he had taken the PSP he owned.

Was this just an exclusive launch in London or was the product stocked in other U.K cities that Friday?

Also with the potential waitress sighting in Pizza Hut I actually thought the person had just spoken to a Met officer. I didn't realise Andrew's Mum and Sister had travelled down to meet the potential witness so yes knowing his exact mannerisms as family I do think it is interesting they found that account pretty credible.

As ever with these cases very lax from the police as seemingly they'd have never found him on CCTV without private help!

You could buy the PSP in Doncaster or anywhere where consoles were sold like Smyth's Toys or GAME.

 

[vagab0nd]

Yeah, many schools were blocking some websites, libraries and internet cafes could do it to.
Out of the many websites that provided chatrooms most were totally mondain, like news websites or music bands websites or hobby websites.
Users had to much more options to connect with other people online that they do now.

Are we having some reasons to assume that ALL was blocked?
Really, are we believing that they next lever, thoroughly searched and cross examined all possible computers while they failed with CCTV so miserably?
Either way, even if they DID searched it all left and right, how on Earth would they cross examine it with any sort of confidence not knowing when exactly Andrew could be accessing internet there?

Searching through a personal device is much easier than trying to find something between 20 or 30 different ones not having much of specific timing to check and dozens on dozens of different users.
This would be just an immense task and not finding anything that would catch the eye only proves that there wasnt anything obvious, not that there wasnt anything at all.
ISP connection logs huh?
Like what would these "ISP connection" logs tell them?
Line of thoughts is just bit unclear to me:

Usage of "Hard Drive Forensics to find "ghost" fragments of chats hidden in the computer's temporary cache and unallocated space" meaning: they would find a chat history.
Switching into checking ISP logs to... check on which computer they found it, who it belongs to and when that person was accessing what kind of online service?
I imagine it being bit redundant.
No need to go for ISP logs unless you have a chat or an email and want to know who was on the other end, who could send that email.
Gibberish made by AI gets funny sometimes.

Anything would be much complicated then than it is now, many things would be doable but we cant forget that they would have multiple devices with a lot of data with unlikely more than a few specific timeframes to check: like on the September 11th Andrew borrowed his sister's laptop for two hours between 5 and 7 PM cause who would be able to provide them with solid timeframes from other computers being (possibly) used by Andrew in August? July? June? April?
ICQ was already vintage in 2007, barely anyone was using it and it would be the second easiest to track (after email exchange) way of communication online.

Maybe if they had AI then and fed them all the info they found on these devices it could notice something. But without it?
Immense amount of data + not much of a clue which part of that data is relevant + possibly some internet cafes being an option + no email found + the fact that they failed to access the right data ten years later when they had a specific user to locate + lack of urgency in LE actions = keeps that window of possibility open: that Andrew WAS staying in touch with someone online.
It may be not super highely likely but considering the circumstances it remains a possibility.

Just to clarify: the team that examined Andrew’s internet history was not the same team handling the CCTV review. They were separate strands of the investigation, handled by different officers at different times. So failures in the CCTV work don’t automatically mean the internet enquiries were conducted in the same way or by the same people.

Investigators examine the physical machine: browser history, cache, cookies, saved logins, downloaded files, temporary files, and unallocated space where fragments of deleted data can remain. This can sometimes show visits to websites, forums, email access, or chats but only if the data hasn’t been overwritten and only on the specific device examined. An ISP does not store chat messages, emails, or forum posts. At most, they may log that a particular IP address connected to a particular service or domain at a given time. Even that data was often retained for short periods in 2007 and is useless without a precise timeframe. We have no evidence of Andrew being active online so they probably had no timeframe to examine. Investigators typically turn to ISP logs when they already have a specific account, email, or communication and want to identify the other end or confirm timing. It’s not a fishing tool you can realistically use to discover unknown conversations. It's not really going to be used unless Andrew was active online and he wasn't. If your family member said so and so never went online and forensics do a basic check then they don't dig deeper.