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

[warp3dwing]

Well, the picture Andrew's dad painted is much different from a naive, introverted, lonely child thats repeatedly painted in coverages of this story. Smart, witty, headstrong, open, chatty, sophisticated and well familiar with London, comfortable talking with adults.
Maybe his dad is tragically not wrong at all and Andrew just wanted to have a nice time away from school, check out the store (or whatever) and then went to someone he (or possibly even they knew) to do exactly what he predicted: went to someone he considered as friend and told them that he skipped school and needs a place to "hide" from angry parents for few hours till they get over that trip - letting that person know that nobody knows he got to London.

In that case all that lack of hints, lack of tracks, lack of leads would make sense as there wouldnt be any as nothing particularly important was supposed to happen, in Andrew's mind.

I absolutely agree that Mr. Gosden may rose-tint things retrospectively, either consciously or unconsciously. We’re all susceptible to that. But regarding electronics, he had devices at home. His parents kindly provided them. That’s one of the few facts we have!

Any clandestine meetings with someone in London is pure speculation and not based on what is known.

LE can - and often do - get things wrong, but their investigation found absolutely no digital communications from Andrew to anyone. There is no indication he was some kind of computer whiz, and as someone who studies digital forensics and writes digital forensics software, I really doubt he’d be able to cover his tracks and not slip up once.

I’m sorry but I don’t quite understand what you wrote about angry parents. Do you think he was just taking a shopping trip? Would you mind explaining that in more detail? Thank you.

 

[Ellymoo]

I looked up the situation and in 2007 it was posted about in the local newspaper. People were outraged that a boy could be expelled for calling another student a f--kwit once. There's even an inactive Facebook group from 2007 where boys were asking x if he was happy that his bully was now expelled and stuff. Some schools really do take bullying seriously. Obviously not every school in the country, but this one 100% stands by it's anti-bullying values.

That suggests more that the newspaper and the Facebook group do not have all the facts.

Indeed, the asking the victim if they were "happy" says a lot more went on than "calling another student a f**kwit once". It speaks for itself!

I meant to say about the single ticket thing as well: I made that mistake several times when I was young and wasn't sure what I was doing. So I don't read anything into that.

 

[ChatteringBirds]

They don’t. If you run this (and many other posts by this user) through an AI detector it’ll come back as being mostly AI generated. Maybe I’m just getting old but it’s very peculiar imo, and I’ve found the past few pages of this thread incredibly hard to read as a result.

You can block posts by a particular user if you really want to.

But IMO we should all just agree not to use AI on this thread, because Websleuths is meant to be fact-based.

as someone who studies digital forensics and writes digital forensics software, I really doubt he’d be able to cover his tracks and not slip up once

I guess this is why some people think he might have been lured to London by someone in Doncaster. And that he possibly met with this person after school, including the day he was known to walk home. However there is no evidence for that either.

 

[warp3dwing]

guess this is why some people think he might have been lured to London by someone in Doncaster. And that he possibly met with this person after school, including the day he was known to walk home. However there is no evidence for that either.

Yeah, absolutely. To me, this seems like a reach. Andrew wasn’t seen with anyone during these walks, which, AFAIK, only happened once or twice.

Grooming usually happens over months, but no evidence of anything like that has come to light. I’m sure that over the intervening years, LE has investigated everyone with local access to Andrew.

By all accounts, he seemed to have kept to himself and was a homebody. This would make in-person grooming very difficult, and digital grooming more likely. But the absence of evidence of digital comms makes grooming unlikely by any means.

I know people love the maxim, “absence of evidence doesn’t mean evidence of absence.” But I feel like in Andrew’s case, people apply this saying over and over, allowing for endless fantastical possibilities. Usually, things are exactly what they seem to be.

All known evidence points to Andrew choosing to leave home on his own terms and hiding his tracks, even though we don’t know his exact plans. All theories involving grooming are not based on evidence.

I think the recent Thomas Medlin case has a number of striking similarities to Andrew’s disappearance: smart 14-15 year old kids, high achievers, unfounded rumors of online grooming, traveling miles away to a big city before vanishing. The main difference is that in Thomas’s case, we have digital datapoints to help us reach the likeliest conclusion.

In Andrew’s case, we can’t eliminate random abduction. Sure. After all, it does sometimes happen. But I strongly feel that this theory holds more weight with people who aren’t from big cities. Those of us who do live in cities, understand that they’re not rife with endless pedophile abductors.

There are thousands of Thomas Medlins and Andrew Gosdens just freely going about their daily lives all around me here in NYC. And unless they’re doing something strange, neither I nor anyone else notice them. In fact, I haven’t even seen one public report saying someone saw Thomas, and yet we know he traveled many miles through the city, passing by hundreds or thousands of people.

Sorry for the ramble.

 

[Inspector Evans]

I absolutely agree that Mr. Gosden may rose-tint things retrospectively, either consciously or unconsciously. We’re all susceptible to that. But regarding electronics, he had devices at home. His parents kindly provided them. That’s one of the few facts we have!

Any clandestine meetings with someone in London is pure speculation and not based on what is known.

LE can - and often do - get things wrong, but their investigation found absolutely no digital communications from Andrew to anyone. There is no indication he was some kind of computer whiz, and as someone who studies digital forensics and writes digital forensics software, I really doubt he’d be able to cover his tracks and not slip up once.

I’m sorry but I don’t quite understand what you wrote about angry parents. Do you think he was just taking a shopping trip? Would you mind explaining that in more detail? Thank you.

I think where we are at speculating about this case is number 1) trying to work out what took him to London that day? Meeting another person at some point that day? Or some event was on that day he simply didn't want to miss out on. Or both scenarios happened, he met someone to go to an event with?

He clearly didn't know this person well otherwise I'm sure his parents might've known of someone who might've tempted him down to London.

Then 2) is how long after arriving in London did he meet with probable misfortune? Hours or maybe as I suspect days.

What is certain is he'd have needed somewhere to stay as I really couldn't imagine him sleeping rough at night by a canal or countryside, he'd have surely had a rucksack with him for a start.

Those are the two main scenarios and clearly something went very very wrong in the hours after he arrived in London.

 

[lisasimpson2010]

I looked up the situation and in 2007 it was posted about in the local newspaper. People were outraged that a boy could be expelled for calling another student a f--kwit once. There's even an inactive Facebook group from 2007 where boys were asking x if he was happy that his bully was now expelled and stuff. Some schools really do take bullying seriously. Obviously not every school in the country, but this one 100% stands by it's anti-bullying values.

Oh I'm sorry, I wasn't suggesting this specific incident didn't happen. I would be surprised if there wasn't more backstory though; no school in my country would expel someone based on one single incident of bad language. There was almost certainly history of bullying documented, and this was the final straw.

 

[warp3dwing]

I think where we are at speculating about this case is number 1) trying to work out what took him to London that day? Meeting another person at some point that day? Or some event was on that day he simply didn't want to miss out on. Or both scenarios happened, he met someone to go to an event with?

He clearly didn't know this person well otherwise I'm sure his parents might've known of someone who might've tempted him down to London.

Then 2) is how long after arriving in London did he meet with probable misfortune? Hours or maybe as I suspect days.

What is certain is he'd have needed somewhere to stay as I really couldn't imagine him sleeping rough at night by a canal or countryside, he'd have surely had a rucksack with him for a start.

Those are the two main scenarios and clearly something went very very wrong in the hours after he arrived in London.

I personally don't believe he went for an event or to meet anyone else. There is no evidence pointing toward either of these options.

I think Andrew was fully aware that skipping school and disappearing without a trace would cause his family to panic when they learned of his absence in a matter of hours. It would've been very difficult for him to get to London, do something, then return to Doncaster before his family realized he was gone. He'd have to almost immediately catch the train back! I don't think there's an early afternoon event on the face of the planet that would be worth the anguish. Especially not for a fourteen-year-old. A Sherlock Holmes walking tour? Afternoon tea at the Savoy? I joke, but I just can't think of anything.

What stuck out to me is that Kevin Gosden has said he has absolutely no idea what would've spurred Andrew to London (or beyond). Often, if a child wants some thing, they will first petition (read: beg) their parents for it. Denial could cause the child to do the thing anyway, in spite of their parents.

But if Andrew had made any declarations of desire to do something or go to somewhere, surely Kevin would've remembered. E.g.: "He did say he really wanted to see bands in London, but we told him maybe when he's sixteen." That never happened.

I also don't believe in coincidences. So, I'm not sold that on this particular day - the only one where he skived off to London - he happened to come across a random killer who picked him out of everyone. Possible? Sure. But highly unlikely. I think the arrests in 2021 were an absolute -up, and that's why the police have scrubbed all mention of it from official sites.

I think the most useful fact/clue we have is that he withdrew £200 before he left. Whatever he wanted to do, £200 was more than enough; the £100 birthday cash wasn't needed. After the £31.40 train ticket, he'd have £168.60. What could you do - or where could you go - with that in 2007? I feel like that's the best we can do with the facts we have. At least it's quantifiable!

I totally agree that Andrew didn't plan to sleep rough. So, I'd say he meant to do whatever he wanted to do before sleep would be necessary.

 

[mikeshanty]

I personally don't believe he went for an event or to meet anyone else. There is no evidence pointing toward either of these options.

I think Andrew was fully aware that skipping school and disappearing without a trace would cause his family to panic when they learned of his absence in a matter of hours. It would've been very difficult for him to get to London, do something, then return to Doncaster before his family realized he was gone. He'd have to almost immediately catch the train back! I don't think there's an early afternoon event on the face of the planet that would be worth the anguish. Especially not for a fourteen-year-old. A Sherlock Holmes walking tour? Afternoon tea at the Savoy? I joke, but I just can't think of anything.

What stuck out to me is that Kevin Gosden has said he has absolutely no idea what would've spurred Andrew to London (or beyond). Often, if a child wants some thing, they will first petition (read: beg) their parents for it. Denial could cause the child to do the thing anyway, in spite of their parents.

But if Andrew had made any declarations of desire to do something or go to somewhere, surely Kevin would've remembered. E.g.: "He did say he really wanted to see bands in London, but we told him maybe when he's sixteen." That never happened.

I also don't believe in coincidences. So, I'm not sold that on this particular day - the only one where he skived off to London - he happened to come across a random killer who picked him out of everyone. Possible? Sure. But highly unlikely. I think the arrests in 2021 were an absolute -up, and that's why the police have scrubbed all mention of it from official sites.

I think the most useful fact/clue we have is that he withdrew £200 before he left. Whatever he wanted to do, £200 was more than enough; the £100 birthday cash wasn't needed. After the £31.40 train ticket, he'd have £168.60. What could you do - or where could you go - with that in 2007? I feel like that's the best we can do with the facts we have. At least it's quantifiable!

I totally agree that Andrew didn't plan to sleep rough. So, I'd say he meant to do whatever he wanted to do before sleep would be necessary.

I mean, Donny to KX is less than two hours on a high-speed service. He could theoretically have arrived around 10AM and left at 3PM?

 

[warp3dwing]

I mean, Donny to KX is less than two hours on a high-speed service. He could theoretically have arrived around 10AM and left at 3PM?

He got to KX around 11:30am, so if he had to leave before 3, that doesn't leave time to do much of anything, especially including inter-London transport. That makes little sense to me. And this timeline only works with hindsight.

The school called the wrong number. What could have happened was Charlotte comes home ~3pm, receives the phone message from the school, then contacts her parents. That gives Andrew essentially no time to return without repercussion. He could not have known his absence wouldn't be detected until 7pm.

 

[mikeshanty]

He got to KX around 11:30am, so if he had to leave before 3, that doesn't leave time to do much of anything, especially including inter-London transport. That makes little sense to me. And this timeline only works with hindsight.

The school called the wrong number. What could have happened was Charlotte comes home ~3pm, receives the phone message from the school, then contacts her parents. That gives Andrew essentially no time to return without repercussion. He could not have known his absence wouldn't be detected until 7pm.

This case always baffled me, but to be honest, I have not been across all the detail on WS. I read up on it a lot a while ago.

Can you remind me what is the leading theory? I recall there were concerns about the fact he was in the KX area, although the CCTV simply records him leaving the train station. And some speculation that I'm not sure if I can mention here about maybe a more personal characteristic. Maybe he met someone online and decided to go for the day? Very unusual for a child that age to decide to go missing.

 

[Inspector Evans]

I personally don't believe he went for an event or to meet anyone else. There is no evidence pointing toward either of these options.

I think Andrew was fully aware that skipping school and disappearing without a trace would cause his family to panic when they learned of his absence in a matter of hours. It would've been very difficult for him to get to London, do something, then return to Doncaster before his family realized he was gone. He'd have to almost immediately catch the train back! I don't think there's an early afternoon event on the face of the planet that would be worth the anguish. Especially not for a fourteen-year-old. A Sherlock Holmes walking tour? Afternoon tea at the Savoy? I joke, but I just can't think of anything.

What stuck out to me is that Kevin Gosden has said he has absolutely no idea what would've spurred Andrew to London (or beyond). Often, if a child wants some thing, they will first petition (read: beg) their parents for it. Denial could cause the child to do the thing anyway, in spite of their parents.

But if Andrew had made any declarations of desire to do something or go to somewhere, surely Kevin would've remembered. E.g.: "He did say he really wanted to see bands in London, but we told him maybe when he's sixteen." That never happened.

I also don't believe in coincidences. So, I'm not sold that on this particular day - the only one where he skived off to London - he happened to come across a random killer who picked him out of everyone. Possible? Sure. But highly unlikely. I think the arrests in 2021 were an absolute -up, and that's why the police have scrubbed all mention of it from official sites.

I think the most useful fact/clue we have is that he withdrew £200 before he left. Whatever he wanted to do, £200 was more than enough; the £100 birthday cash wasn't needed. After the £31.40 train ticket, he'd have £168.60. What could you do - or where could you go - with that in 2007? I feel like that's the best we can do with the facts we have. At least it's quantifiable!

I totally agree that Andrew didn't plan to sleep rough. So, I'd say he meant to do whatever he wanted to do before sleep would be necessary.

Yes 200 quid was interesting amount to withdraw given train ticket was £31 so that is plenty to use still for when he's in the capital.

Surely hints he planned to stay the night otherwise why not just withdraw £100 if coming back that day?

However no hotels or B&Bs or anyone other official place reported anyone matching his description checking in that Friday so again none the wiser for that motive other than speculation.

 

[warp3dwing]

This case always baffled me, but to be honest, I have not been across all the detail on WS. I read up on it a lot a while ago.

Can you remind me what is the leading theory? I recall there were concerns about the fact he was in the KX area, although the CCTV simply records him leaving the train station. And some speculation that I'm not sure if I can mention here about maybe a more personal characteristic. Maybe he met someone online and decided to go for the day? Very unusual for a child that age to decide to go missing.

I don't think there is one leading theory because of the total lack of facts. A lot of people "choose their own adventure." The Wikipedia page is probably as good a resource as any in getting an overview.

The last footage of Andrew shows him leaving KX, away from the tube, and walking it what appears to be an easterly or southeasterly direction.

No evidence of communications with anyone, internet chats, or other plans were found by LE. If he's still alive, it'd be an exceptional outlier, almost beyond belief.

The leading causes of death for someone Andrew's age are accidents and suicide (I'm leaving out cancer for obvious reasons), so my guess is it's one of those two. Or possibly an assault or abduction.

 

[mikeshanty]

I don't think there is one leading theory because of the total lack of facts. A lot of people "choose their own adventure." The Wikipedia page is probably as good a resource as any in getting an overview.

The last footage of Andrew shows him leaving KX, away from the tube, and walking it what appears to be an easterly or southeasterly direction.

No evidence of communications with anyone, internet chats, or other plans were found by LE. If he's still alive, it'd be an exceptional outlier, almost beyond belief.

The leading causes of death for someone Andrew's age are accidents and suicide (I'm leaving out cancer for obvious reasons), so my guess is it's one of those two. Or possibly an assault or abduction.

Thank you. What are the theories as to why LE were unable to make any progress on the case after so many years? Even back in 2007, the UK and London especially had CCTV everywhere and there was even hysteria back then about the extent of CCTV. I say that as a fifty year old man based here.