I don’t necessarily believe Andrew went to London for a fun day out, but I do believe there is a case for it which is not often discussed or considered.
This argument revolves around Andrew simply going to London for a day out to explore the city on his own, fully intending to return the same day and for his parents not to even know he was away. He could get home later and say he had been with a friend after school.
The case for: * The reason no one in his life suspected anything was wrong with Andrew is because there wasn’t. He was a happy, normal teenager who planned a last-minute trip to London in a typical impulsive teenager way. * Andrew had no Internet access at home. He wasn’t known to be interested in computers and no one has claimed Andrew was a user of chat rooms or email on school computers. He was not known for being interested in tech. * Police found nothing out of the ordinary on any of Andrew’s devices * He didn’t bring his PSP charger because he thought he’d be back the same day * Andrew put his uniform in the washing machine so everything would appear normal for his return. Andrew would claim that he had come home from school, got changed and gone to a friend’s house until the evening. * Andrew didn’t pack anything that would suggest he intended to be out of the house for longer than a day. He had more cash and money in his account that he didn’t take with him. * The Pizza Hut sighting is compelling. It’s a restaurant his family had been to before. He’s there on his own, quietly and contentedly eating his favourite pizza. He wasn’t nervous, wasn’t in a rush, and didn’t meet anyone there. * The lack of return train ticket is explained by Andrew’s family never buying return tickets. He was also a bit nervous to be out of school so just wanted to buy his ticket and get on the train. * The reason Andrew didn’t go down to the tube is because he just wanted to get out and explore, meander around London, head to Pizza Hut, browse some shops and then go home. Maybe even attend a gig later, but I think this would be too late to return home on time.
The most convincing argument against this theory, of course, is that Andrew never returned home. What would lead to this teenager not ever being seen again? A few possibilities: * Mugging gone wrong. Andrew was vulnerable, not particularly street smart, and was holding a large amount of cash as well as a PSP. Theft is very common in London. Andrew may have ventured into a high crime area. * Groomed/picked up by someone who befriended him after noticing he was on his own and far from home. This person later murdered him. * Was accidentally hit by a car, his body then concealed and disposed of.
These theories seem far fetched but there is NO evidence he was groomed, had regular access to the internet, or knew anyone in London other than distant relatives who he rarely saw.
Anything I’ve missed in the case for the ‘fun day out’ theory?
The contexts which best fit the available evidence is that he simply went there for enjoyment and something unexpected happened or to a place he enjoyed with the intention of ending his life.
You are correct that the evidence does not fit that he was groomed.
But there’s no evidence other than CCTV that proves he travelled to London and ended up there.
There is, and equally the lack of supporting evidence for another person’s involvement suggests suicide should be weighted greater.
What other confirmed evidence of what happened that day is there?
When he left, how he left, what he took with him, what he was wearing, witness accounts, two bits of CCTV footage, his lack of contact with anyone etc etc these are all evidence of varying degrees.
There’s no smoking gun, but in most legal cases no such thing exists.
Aye I suppose. Frankly I don’t rule anything out. Do bear in mind he could’ve kept his contact private.
I completely agree that Andrew intended to come home / just one thing - wouldn’t he of realised that the school would inform his parents of his absence or was that something he’d face when he got home maybe ? …he wouldn’t of known the school had the wrong number …
I believe he had 100% attendance up until that day, so he wouldn’t necessarily have known.
His father also suggested that Andrew may have decided it was better to ask for forgiveness rather than permission had he seen something he really wanted to do that day in London.
Good point !!
For the first theory you stated, that Andrew could've been mugged, I think this is a possibility, given he had a PSP and £200 cash in his bag. Perhaps a zip/pocket on his bag was open, and this caught the eye of a thief. I just can't see how that on its own would lead to him disappearing.
If we're going with the theory he was mugged, I've thought about the possibility he was mugged, perhaps in the dark with few people around, and was then approached by or started a conversation with a stranger who offered help, a lift to a police station or who knows what else who then took advantage of the situation. Perhaps he decided to walk in the dark across London to his relatives, and this is where he ran into someone sinister. Since Gosden was deaf in one ear and needed very strong prescription glasses, it would make him more vulnerable than your average teen.
I think too there's a possibility he was approached by a total stranger who befriended him, especially if Andrew has gone somewhere with the intention of chatting with others or where they'd be lots of people he had things in common with around e.g. a concert, perhaps a music or video game shop, etc. This might link to the theory above.
I think the final bullet point, about him being in some sort of hit and run really isn't considered enough on here. It's not a likely theory in my opinion, but perhaps someone who was involved in some sort of accident, likely in a stolen vehicle, under the influence, wanted by the police, etc decided to hide his body. You'd expect a witness though and some physical evidence left at the scene if something like this happened.
It could be the case that Andrew witnessed something in London e.g. drug dealing, human trafficking, etc that a criminal gang of some sort didn't want him to see, so felt like they had to murder him and hide his body to protect their organisation.
On the hit and run accident, physical evidence would be a situation much much like the CCTV.
It would have existed, but if no one knew to collect it, it would eventually get washed away.
There'd of course be CCTV, but if you were to hit someone at such a speed that it kills them, without being too gruesome, there'd also likely be a loud noise which would attract attention, as well as bits of old car and human remains left on the road.
That depends entirely on how they hit the car as well as the age and size of the person who gets hit, and the size and shape of the car itself.
There’s also zero guarantee any of it would happen in front of witnesses or CCTV.
the total stranger idea. I'm inclined to agree.
I think that as Andrew visited London with his family regularly, was even trusted to go down to London alone to stay with his Gran- His father stated he had been offered this option during the summer holidays and declined.
Andrew may have been overconfident in London and that over confidence made him vulnerable, as well as being a young teen out of uniform on a school day. meaning he would have stood out.
Context can make someone vulnerable, it is not necessarily a personality trait, An example. I am female. I go to the park for a walk. Now at 2pm, it's safe, I am not vulnerable. At 2am, I am incredibly vulnerable.
However, London has been the focus because we don;t know where he went after Andrew exited Kings Cross that day. It's possible that focussing on London is looking in the wrong place.
Mugging. A 14 year old? Can we be honest here, muggers tend to target adults because the reward vs risk is far greater. We know Andrew didn't have an expensive mobile for the era, and as we can see from that last CCTV image he wasn't walking around with 200 quid and a PSP in his hand, designer clothes or anything that would indicate he was worth mugging.
Hit and run without witnesses in central London and the time taken to conceal a body. I find that highly unlikely TBH.
here's one thing I haven't heard mentioned and a bit out of the box a long shot. I used to work as a CFA ( looking after benefits etc for social services clients who don't have a suitable deputy,) One thing that actual shocked me, was the surprising number of people in mental institutions, and we no idea who they were, no ID, no name, nothing. People who had been there for decades without anyone being able o find out, if they had family, if they were missing. Even more shocking, it was linked to our jobs was that no one cared or even bothered trying to find out.... they were just assumed to have no one.
Being honest - a teenager being mugged in central London (or indeed any major city in the UK) is a reasonable theory and something which absolutely does happen.
I was a bit younger than Andrew when he went missing, and several of my friends and relatives were mugged in London both before and after he went missing. PSPs were a common target (worth more than some phones in 2007) and occasionally blades were shown.
I now work in a secondary school. I've worked in five different schools since I started working in education, and all of those schools have had reports of students being mugged both before and after school hours.
Andrew was smaller than average, visually impaired, not particularly streetwise and alone, all things which would have stuck out to someone looking for a target.
Now, whether such a situation occurred and then escalated to a murder is obviously a very different matter.
I don't think it's the most likely theory, but it shouldn't be discounted.
I read through the Wikipedia page and it states that his older sister had gone to London to handout CV’s (resumes) when she was 14 and that maybe he did the same. There’s no way to be sure but it is interesting
It’s possible but why not tell anyone? Why skip school?
True
Because when you're a child you do stupid and reckless things. We all did.
So you think the stupid and reckless thing Andrew did was not tell anyone he was going to apply for jobs in London on a school day?
As a 14 year old.
Well it's pretty reckless not to tell anyone that you're traveling to London. I don't get what point you're trying to make?
Wasn't the sister CV trip together with her father?
Be careful of the wikipedia page, by the way. There are a number of things wrong with it. But it tends to be the basis of must YouTube videos and podcasts. However, as the mistakes have sources, the gatekeepers of that page don't like it being changed. The sources are often videos/podcasts that got their info from that page in the first place, the ouroboros of facts.
That's interesting, what would you say was wrong with it?
A quick look:
"his parents reported that Gosden twice chose to break his normal routine; he told them he walked home from school rather than taking the school bus" - it was once according to his father
"Gosden had difficulty waking up and seemed particularly irritable." - This is not how it's reported in interviews
No mention of the sighting of him crossing into the park by family friend
"Gosden was then recorded on a neighbour's CCTV system returning home" - this did not happen
"At 8:30 am, Gosden departed the house for the final time and was seen heading down Littlemoor Lane, towards Westfield Park on the neighbour's CCTV camera. " - no, it was 9:05 and he was walking away from Westfield park
"At 9:35 am, Gosden was seen boarding the train to King's Cross station alone." - this have never been confirmed, but presumably there's CCTV of him boarding, however, the train arrived to platform at 9:32 and departed at 9:34, so it wasn't at 9:35
That's off the top of my head on the timeline, maybe all are small things, but it call anything else into question. There's more misrepresentation in other sections based using newspaper as a factual source - wikipedia's source philosophy is weird. It's been discussed in this sub before. But almost all the podcasts/videos on it use these "facts". These days the scripts are often AI generated and heavily use wikipedia.
The lack of a body smacks of foul play.
Corrie McKeague went missing after he fell alseep in a rubbish bin - his body is now lost somewhere in the huge expanse of the landfill system.
Then you have cases where people fall (or jump) into water and get washed away.
It’s absolutely possible for someone to go missing entirely without foul play being involved.
I don't think the cases are comparable, sorry.
I’m giving a real example of someone who went missing in a residential area through a simple error of judgement - the fact is a person can go missing without a need for foul play.
Obviously they were different people and different situations, and I’m not trying to suggest otherwise.
Does anyone think, and I'm sorry to say this but he intentionally or unintentionally ended up in a large dumpster bin ?. Hiding, nowhere to stay, killed on purpose or accidentally and ended up in a garbage collection crusher ?
I don’t see it as the most likely option, but it has happened before (see: Corrie McKeague) and shouldn’t be ruled out.
It would definitely explain the total disappearance.
It's the theory that I have always found most plausible. He was said to have found school boring so perhaps he knew taking a day off wouldn't change his grades and whatnot.
The only issue I come to regarding this theory is if he went for a day out he would've (most likely) stuck to central London and the popular tourist spots. Petty crime may happen in those spots, but a kidnapping would be difficult to pull off.
The purchase of the single journey ticket blows this whole theory wide open, even after the ticket seller explained to him how little more a return ticket would cost he still only bought a single and I don't believe that he did it because his parents had done a similar thing previously, he was an intelligent boy and the financial saving would have been obvious to him, I believe that whatever he was running away from was in Doncaster and he travelled to London because he'd been there before and the place had good memories for him, maybe he intended to return home at some point but not on the same day hence the single ticket, it was unfortunate that the school rang the wrong house but I still don't think he would have got away with taking the day off to have a day out, he very rarely if ever missed a day of school and so it was totally out of character for him, I mean it's all only theorizing but I think the idea of the random day out in London just doesn't hold up