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

[insertusername]

This case fascinates me because of the high level institutional and investigative view rather than on the ground events.

1. Sept 14, 2007: Andrew goes missing.
2. Sept 17, 2007: South Yorkshire Police (SYP) confirm the one-way ticket purchase.
3. BTP claim: British Transport Police (BTP) claim Andrew is not on any CCTV.
4. Delay: After 27 days, South Yorkshire Police (SYP) detectives review the same footage at King’s Cross and find Andrew in minutes.
5. Evidence Loss: By this point, all peripheral CCTV (buses, shops, street cams) had been overwritten.
6. Dec 8, 2021: Two men arrested in London; digital devices seized.
7. Jan 11, 2022: Public told that "numerous devices" were seized for analysis in the Gosden case.
8. July 26, 2023: South Yorkshire Police (SYP) claim they accidently deleted over 96,000 pieces of evidence.
9. Sept 20, 2023: The legal basis (under PACE Section 22 and the Data Protection Act) to hold the suspects' devices/data expires.
10. Sept 20, 2023: On the same day, the two suspects are officially exonerated and eliminated from the inquiry.

 

[ChatteringBirds]

@insertusername
Welcome to Websleuths.

I would like to hear more.

8. July 26, 2023: South Yorkshire Police (SYP) claim they accidently deleted over 96,000 pieces of evidence.
9. Sept 20, 2023: The legal basis (under PACE Section 22 and the Data Protection Act) to hold the suspects' devices/data expires.

Do you have a source for #8 and 9 on your list? Because this is one of my very top cases (that I hope to see solved) and don't think I've seen these claims before...

 

[Aluev]

8. July 26, 2023: South Yorkshire Police (SYP) claim they accidently deleted over 96,000 pieces of evidence.

I've never heard of this before! I can't think of how it is related, though. It seems that the lost evidence is worn camera footage by policemen when engaging with the public.

Police reveal full extent of video evidence loss​

"SOUTH Yorkshire Police has been reprimanded by the Information Commissioner’s Office after it was found the force deleted more than 96,000 pieces of body-worn video evidence. Body-worn video (BWV) footage is often recorded when officers engage with members of the public or when they are responding to an incident. South Yorkshire Police say they use it for scrutiny and accountability purposes, and it is sometimes used as evidence in court."

 

[insertusername]

@ChatteringBirds @Aluev Thank you, it is a very interesting community. The "expiry" on September 20, 2023, is the application of PACE Section 22 and the Data Protection Act 2018 to the specific facts of this case. There is no single "certificate of expiry," but rather a mandatory legal conclusion:

The Legal Logic: Under PACE Section 22, police can only retain seized data "for as long as is necessary." Once the digital forensic report was finalized (which occurred in September 2023) and showed no evidence of a crime, the "necessity" to hold the devices ceased to exist as a matter of law.

Source: The formal conclusion of the investigation into these individuals was reported by the official Andrew Gosden search website (run by the family) and via SYP’s Press Office statements on September 20, 2023.

The convergence of the data loss (July) and the exoneration (September) led to significant public scrutiny.

Because the forensic evidence was "cleared" and the suspects were eliminated at the same time the force was admitting to a massive data deletion, it raised questions about whether the "elimination" was due to a lack of evidence or a loss of evidence.

However, SYP maintained that the forensic examination of the suspects' devices had been completed and showed no link to Andrew Gosden before any data was disposed of.

Even if the 96,174 deleted files were technically categorised as "Body-Worn Video" (BWV), they lived on the same digital infrastructure as the forensic data from the suspects' devices and it is purely based on their own internal "explanations".

I note that SYP have now shifted to a more aggressive public stance, labelling anyone who criticizes them as disseminating "disinformation". This is quite interesting given their overall performance thus far and that they "may" have deleted all evidence relating to the case.

 

[ChatteringBirds]

However, SYP maintained that the forensic examination of the suspects' devices had been completed and showed no link to Andrew Gosden before any data was disposed of.

I hope this is true.

Do you have an opinion regarding why they went public with the arrests, saying publicly that they were allegedly or possibly linked to Andrew's case, (instead of just investigating quietly whether there was evidence or a link?)

 

[insertusername]

Likely just a PR win for the 15th Anniversary to show they are doing something of consequence. There has been quite a lot of public pressure. It's interesting to me how the investigation in 2007 and the arrests in 2021-23 follow a similar pattern involving time limits and mass deletion of evidence.