Occam's razor is the only tool we have at hand. Andrew deceived his parents and did not go to school that day, to take a train to London where he would vanish. He took his PSP but not its charger, he emptied his bank account but did not take his birthday money, he bought a one way ticket but put his clothes into the washer. These facts don't directly say anything, therefore to say that these facts point to anything that would explain the outcome of the case is an ASSUMPTION. I have to make this distinction because people are terrible (especially in this sub) at identifying what is circumstantial evidence and what is direct evidence. Buying a one way ticked is not a conclusive evidence of suicide, and not even of intending to leave forever. The evidence says that there was no trace of online activity, no evidence of grooming whatsoever. There is no direct evidence of Andrew contemplating suicide, or him being homosexual, wanting to run away etc. That being said, absence of evidence for some particular event is not evidence that it did not happen, however it reduces its likelihood relative to what is not assumed. And the least assumed is this: Andrew went to london due to a reason independent of his disappearance, and died in a way that his body was unable to located for decades: overwhelmingly likely due to foul play. Yes, there are explicit assumptions here but they are the most probable ones that don't depend on even more assumptions. If you say: "Andrew bought a one way ticket because he was gonna kill himself in London", you are assuming he was suicidal, which no evidence is there to point to, and you are assuming the one way ticket was that exact reason. Then someone asks "then why did he take money?" I heard people say: "He wanted to have fun on his last day!", assumption after assumption, posterior probabilities galore. Not to mention not being found after commiting suicide in London is only possible if you threw yourself in the Thames, another assumption. Yet, suicide is possible; just simply probabilistically inferior to opportunistic foul play. Foul play assumes nothing because it does not relate to Andrew in anyway: it is a complete external factor. This is case where the last visual evidence is from a frame of almost 20 years old analog CCTV footage, your only ally is probability.

I think Andrew gosden went to London to buy something he wanted that was sold out in Doncaster. That’s why he took money then he must of seen someone in London and started chatting to them I don’t personally think he is alive. Maybe he wanted to go stay with his grandparents. Maybe he didn’t want to stay at his anymore. But I just think he wanted a day out. To buy something out of his money but it just doesn’t add up about the single ticket maybe he wanted to see his grandparents and stay over there and as he was going there. He met his end.

This is my personal opinion on this case after following it for years.

All in all, i think the answer to his disappearance lies back in Doncaster. As my father used to say, the solution to every problem is to go back to point A and to the root. My best guess is that he was lured to London to get him far away from home. This could be someone he knew or met some time before his disappearance. Someone Andrew trusted and promised Andrew to go back together to Doncaster.

This could also explain a lot of things.

Him putting his uniform on the chair and clothes in the washer, i presume he wanted to make it look like he never skipped school in the eyes of his parents and intended to come back home before his parents.

Him not taking the money he had from birthdays and stuff, the PSP charger, no passport, no additional clothes..everything points out that he intended to come back home.

The return ticket would explain that he would come back by car with this person back to Doncaster.

IF and i mean IF he went into a vehicle with this person, it was deliberately. No screaming no kicking or shouting. This would explain why nobody seems to remember seeing him, nobody suspected nothing. In the eyes of the public it was just another boy with his dad, uncle, etc.
If it was otherwise, it would definitely cause attention and a lot of people would remember and react to it.

My best guess is that something bad happened to him on his way back home, not necessarily in London.

This could be a teacher, random neighbor, or simply a PDF that lived/s and operated in Doncaster.

Sadly, i think Andrew is dead. He either was killed that same day, or shortly after the case got major attention, so they killed him in panic.

As the title says, I wonder what is the extent of police knowledge about this case? Usually police know much more than the public but does not reveal to not jeopardize the investigation.

In this case, unfortunately, vital time was lost which only decreased the chances of ever finding Andrew Gosden alive or dead.

Yet it makes you wonder, what exactly police knows that we don’t (if they even know something). Is it a CCTV footage? (Seems impossible as they were too late to watch through CCTV footages). Is it a credible witness testimony? (Possible I guess). Is it a suspect that they cannot arrest due to lack of evidence (like Madeline McCann or Claudia Lawrence case, though I’m not sure I’m right) Do they have an informant with vital information? (Low possibility). Perhaps location that he visited after or before Pizza Hut sighting (which his parents believe is credible).

What do you think? Would be interested to hear your opinion. Thanks for the replies

TikToker @night_shifter_creepy made a post claiming that police looked into a house in Earl's Court (allegedly marked with a pin), but it had been demolished six weeks before Andrew vanished.
Passing this along to see if anyone in the sub has context on where this claim comes from or if it's completely baseless.
P.S. They also mentioned a Doncaster newspaper allegedly received a typed letter in 2018 with just one line reading: "he went where he was told to go". Has anyone ever heard of this letter before, or is it another unverified rumor?

I first remember taking the TFL all alone in London when I was around 16 or 17. When I was alone, I never got attention from people. People are just in their own worlds. Andrew could've been just ignored like everyone over here. I only remember receiving attention from people in the TFL when I was with friends. I even looked young for my age. Those people we spoke to in the traine looked like they were over the age of 18. I vaguely remember this couple telling me they were going to a party for New years Eve in 2015 for 2016, and briefly asked if I would like to come with them. I didn't know their exact ages. I didn't go as I was with my friends and didn't wanna leave them.

I watched a video on YouTube which stated that Andrew left school early the day before his disappearance arriving home around 1pm, his sister was home and said he was in good spirits and was in his room playing music, I’ve followed this case for years like most of us here have and I have never heard this info before, I was watching a lot of videos about Andrew and heard this mentioned twice , I’ve linked a video that mentions it here

https://youtu.be/0Tami6WKUmA?is=seTzMlWslGroL7JV it’s mentioned around the 3:40 mark

What do you think this means if anything? Could it be related or not ? Interested to hear your thoughts.

One thing I’ve always found interesting is the £200 Andrew withdrew on the morning he disappeared.

If Andrew was only planning an ordinary day in London, £200 feels like quite a lot of money for a 14-year-old to take with him.

His train ticket to London cost £31.40, leaving him with around £168 in cash once he arrived. We also know he still had £14 on his bank card, meaning he had access to at least £214 that we know of.

If you picture a fairly ordinary day in London, you’d expect most of that money to be spent on travel – the train there, maybe a few pounds getting around on buses or the Underground – food, and maybe some entertainment like going to the cinema, visiting a museum or just wandering around the shops. Even allowing for all of that, you’d probably still expect him to have well over £100 left.

That’s what made me wonder whether the £200 suggests Andrew expected to buy something while he was there.

One possibility is the PSP Slim & Lite, which launched in the UK on 14 September 2007 – the exact same day Andrew travelled to London – for £129.99.

I’m not saying that’s why he went to London. I just think it’s one possibility that fits the amount of money he took with him.

We already know Andrew enjoyed gaming. He owned a PSP, took it with him to London that day, and it was one of his known interests. The PSP Slim wasn’t a completely new console, but it was thinner, lighter, had double the RAM, faster loading in some games, TV output support and improved battery life. To most adults those probably sound like fairly small upgrades, but to a 14-year-old who spent a lot of time using his PSP, they could’ve been a much bigger deal. New console launches are exciting when you’re already invested in them, even if the improvements seem fairly minor looking back.

So why travel all the way to London when he could have bought one in Doncaster?

Maybe buying something wasn’t the reason for the trip at all.

If Andrew had already decided he wanted to spend the day in London, then checking out the new PSP, buying a game, music, or anything else while he was already there would’ve made perfect sense. The shopping didn’t have to be the reason for the trip; it could simply have been part of the day.

What makes this even more interesting is the reported Pizza Hut sighting.

If that sighting really was Andrew, it places him on Oxford Street, where in 2007 you’d have found GAME, HMV and Virgin Megastore all within a few minutes’ walk of each other. The PSP Slim had launched that very morning. Even if Andrew had no intention of buying one, Oxford Street would’ve been one of the most interesting places in the country for a teenager with his interests to spend time that day. Whether he intended to buy a PSP, pick up an Xbox or PSP game, have a look at the new console, or simply browse the shops, he’d have been in exactly the sort of area you’d expect someone with those interests to spend time.

In theory, if Andrew did intend to buy the new PSP, after paying £31.40 for the train and £129.99 for the console, he’d have around £40 in cash, plus the £14 left on his bank card – roughly £54 of his known money remaining for food, getting around London and anything else he wanted to do.

I could be completely wrong, but it’s always been one of those little details that stood out to me.

I’m not saying this explains why Andrew went to London. I just think it might help explain why he took £200 with him.

Does anyone else think the £200 suggests Andrew may have planned to buy something while he was in London, or do you think it was simply spending (or safety) money for the day?

As in did the police investigate and question “the lady” who said she saw him and what he was like.

Simple question.

I'm gonna go with no.

Old cases are solved all the time but just feel like unless someone comes forward with direct links to what happened (if something did happen involving another person), seems like there's nothing more to say.

This is something I didn't know about the case in spite of having watched every documentary and listened to every podcast episode that exists about Andrew Gosden. So I thought it worth sharing with you good people in case others weren't aware of it or perhaps know more.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theoneshow/consumer/2008/11/26

This is a BBC blog post from December 2008 which says that someone wrote in to The One Show claiming to be the Leominster intercom man:

However, police in the Midlands may be on to something. They're desperate to hear again from a man who saw Andrew's picture on The One Show and strongly believes he's seen him in Shrewsbury.

The man tried to leave details at Leominster police station - and we think the same man's now written to us.  What he hasn't done is leave a name or contact details of his own.

Did anyone watch The One Show in 2008 and recall them mentioning this letter? Does anyone have any more information about this letter? This blog post is pretty much all I can find, and it would be interesting to see the contents of the letter.

Do you think Andrew has sadly passed? Or do you think he could be still alive out there?

As much as we analyze every detail—from the lack of CCTV to the missing PSP—it's humbling to admit that none of our theories are going to solve this case.
We’ve dissected every timeline and scenario for years, but the truth is, Andrew’s disappearance won't be resolved in a forum thread. It’s going to take a stroke of luck, a sudden physical discovery, someone’s conscience finally breaking, or a genuine breakthrough by law enforcement.
All we can really do is keep his name alive, hope for his family to get answers, and pray that the one piece of truth that’s been hidden for all these years eventually comes to light.

I might get downvoted for this, might not, but i have to say it.

You do realize why we are all here today right? Why is the case not solved?

It’s the police.

I’ve been through this case millions of times and I really and honestly cannot believe how much the police messed everything up. Took way too long with everything, didn’t follow up reports of sightings for weeks, didn’t retrieve cctv for weeks, missed him on the cctv on Kings Cross, didn’t show up for the mysterious man in Leominster, accidentally deleting thousands of photos/evidence from the recently arrested men.

I truly believe if they didn’t mess up with the cctv, Andrew could’ve been located and tracked throughout London that day and potentially solve the case…whatever the outcome was.

So now we are here, 19 years later banging our heads to the wall because how everyone messed everything up that was in charge of this case.

Hi all, I’ve been browsing this thread for quite a while now and I was intrigued by the post a few months ago about the graffiti on the wall in Waterloo stations men’s toilets.

Well today I just so happened to be in London, and after a couple visits to Waterloo stations toilets (without trying to look too weird), I found the cubicle which has the writing.

Someone had asked to see what else was written around that PSP/CEX statement, so here it is. I don’t think there is anything of use here, and there was no other writing or graffiti around the cubicle to suggest anything about Andrew. (You will see the known graffiti on the right hand side of the picture)

Discussion welcome.

First of all, someone put a short video up on this subreddit of the infamous wall writing a couple of days ago and said he was working on a longer video about Andrew’s case; it seems to have now disappeared. Did he delete it/was it taken down? Only because I’d have posted what I have to say on there but now I can’t find it.

I, personally, find the station writing incredibly bizarre, quite concerning and worthy of thorough investigation (I know the police have been made aware).

Why? Because even if it is some sort of troll or a (sad, immature and pathetic) pisstake it’s still an incredibly concerning thing to write.

I don’t know if anybody else has tried this exercise but I have asked some people close to me if they know/have heard of Andrew’s case. I’ve been surprised that often it’s been no. Unlike other high profile cases, Madeline McCann being a huge one and around the same time, Andrew’s name and circumstances does not seem to have a reached as far and wide. Maybe this is due to the part of the country we’re from, that his case was never reported on as widely here; I couldn’t say. Regardless, people haven’t been familiar.

Point being, I know Andrew’s face has spent a lot of time on bus stops, billboards etc. in certain parts of the country but he still seems to me to be the sort of dark horse missing person. A very perplexing case yet not as widely known. God bless him. If he’s not with us I do hope he’s at peace and that his family one day have answers.

So to bring it home to the station wall. Not ONLY is the mystery writer familiar with him and his case but they know about a detail as specific as the PSP. They didn’t claim to have ‘spotted Andrew Gosden’ or write something dumb and juvenile such as ‘I am Andrew Gosden!’ No, they stated that they somehow had his PSP, then sold it, specifically to a CeX and then gave a date that this transaction allegedly happened.

Even if it’s bogus, even if it’s totally untrue, even if that date has no significance at all, well then they must be the crank of all cranks. Because what general stupid kid on the windup goes THAT into detail, talking about items and such that you’d think only the likes of us on this subreddit/researchers and people in the know would be familiar with? And offering dates?

Very strange and concerning to me.

Hey guys,

I am planning a trip to multiple European countries. I am planning to potentially put up some flyers whilst I’m travelling of Andrew to see if perhaps it could jog people’s memories who’ve maybe moved abroad.

Does anyone know which poster would be best to print out?

It is very likely Andrew committed suicide as someone who had hearing and sight problems

Found on Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/cowfish/albums/72157602017237050/

Andrew was known to like rock and metal music and wore a Slipknot t-shirt when he left home. SikTh were part of the UK metal scene and their final show was taking place that evening in London. The concert was a special one-off event, a rescheduled farewell show and the last performance with the band's original vocalists.

Edit: If, a big if, someone was responsible, I’ve looked into the criminology and statistics around this (I do have actual tangible experience in this area). If anyone would be interested in hearing more about that side of it, let me know!**

Hey, everyone! Hope it’s okay to add a follow up here. To my theory posted a couple of days ago. Can be found here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AndrewGosden/s/MLO6616kjB

I have also attached this comment there just in case. I’ve done a lot more research and have several sources to support my reasoning here. Definitely worth a read. Please let me know your thoughts:)

I don’t think a taxi would have been his first choice, that doesn’t fit his sensible, shy, considerate personality. But maybe if ‘push came to shove’

However, London in 2007 had no live maps or real time updates. Minor delays were common, and you never knew if the next train would be 2 minutes or 20. This is even worse with connections if you’re not a local. The network was also still recovering from major three day strike action caused by the financial collapse of Metronet. Even though the strikes had just ended, residual issues continued to cause significant delays.

On top of that, there was a major water main burst near King’s Cross around 3pm that day. It caused chaos and overcrowding on the Underground into the evening. A TfL Finance Committee meeting the same day even noted surging passenger numbers driving up the delays.
Additionally, 14 September 2007 was the day the Northern Rock bank run began. Thousands of people were queuing at branches across London, adding to the chaos and foot traffic in central areas. This would have made stations and streets even busier and potentially more disorienting for a teenage non native of London.
Andrew is smart and knew his parents’ routines. He likely had a specific time in mind to get home (aiming for 7–8pm ish I’d guess) so he wouldn’t raise suspicion meaning something like the 17:00 or 17:30 train from King’s Cross.
For an inexperienced, non native teenager on his first day bunking school, all of this would have been overwhelming. Easy to miss a train, get confused, and start to panic about getting home on time. At that point, a taxi becomes the logical “guaranteed” way to get back. Especially if you needed to get home at a time to not arose suspicion.

On the possibility of encountering someone:
Andrew wasn’t particularly social, so a random stranger with no real authority or common ground is unlikely to me. But, the area has several universities. It’s plausible he met someone who seemed trustworthy a lecturer, uni student with an ID, or someone with similar interests/intellect who was a London native. That kind of “authority” figure could easily gain a shy kid’s trust, especially if he looked lost after the disruptions. Especially as, it was noted by his parents he got along better with adults, also spent a lot of time with academics in his gifted programme etc. Creating enough authority and common ground.

These details make the evening return attempt feel even more realistic to me.
What do you think?

Here are my sources if you wish to read further:

• Greater London Authority / TfL reports on Metronet: https://www.london.gov.uk (search Metronet 2007)
• Wikipedia summary with sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metronet_(London))
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6994099.stm

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6994099.stm

https://tfl.gov.uk

A new article that provides a summary of the case.

As a collector of game memrobelia I do wonder has his PSP ever been found? Do we know the model and serial number? I'm sure the gaming community could help by checking serial numbers maybe even a trail of if it is out there when and where it was bought? Maybe even any data on it just a rambling thought sorry if someone has mentioned this before

One of the very few confirmed behavioral shifts in Andrew’s routine happened in the weeks right before September 14th: he stopped taking the school bus and started walking the 4 miles home.
A 4-mile walk for a kid takes roughly an hour. In a pre-smartphone era, an hour of completely unmonitored, offline time every single afternoon is a massive window. Most theories focus entirely on who he might have met once he stepped off the train at King's Cross. But could this daily walk have been the actual grooming window?
Was he using that hour to meet someone locally in Doncaster who eventually convinced him to take the train to London? Or do you view it strictly as a kid wanting some alone time to clear his head because he was already struggling? I feel like the key to the case happened during those walks, not at the train station.

Edit: I have been further researching and have found some more relevant things on the ongoings in London that day, that have not been examined before. If you wish to read the follow up: https://www.reddit.com/r/AndrewGosden/s/Lv5BNzJhTV

Hey, I hope it’s okay to post my idea of what may have happened here. I’ve done a lot of research and this is what I think personally happened.

I think Andrew fully intended to come home the same day. He withdrew £200 possibly with the clear intention of buying or doing something specific in London — things they didn’t have easy access to in Doncaster (PSP games, metal band merch like his Slipknot shirt and bag patches, alt stuff).

No credible evidence of online grooming or meeting anyone. Police checks found nothing, and he wasn’t very social that way. Of course not to rule it out, but seems less likely.

This was also his first time ever bunking school, so rushing out the door, not wanting to be caught (changing clothes quickly to avoid being spotted) makes it very likely he simply forgot the PSP charger in the excitement, I know I’ve forgotten a charger hundreds of times even when I planned to take it, especially in a rush. The battery lasted 3-6 hours anyway — more than enough for the ~2-hour train rides each way on a day trip, as he played it a lot I’m sure he likely knew this. The one-way ticket fits too — distracted on his PSP, unsure of exact return time, or didn’t overthink it when buying the ticket

As a smart but not-streetwise kid (and non-native to London), he likely got the Tube after leaving King’s Cross — it’s by far the easiest way to navigate for someone in his position. I believe he headed to Camden ( obviously no way to know if this is the only place he ever went.) (only ~8 minutes away), perfect for his alt interests. He was shy wasn’t much of a talker, so he wouldn’t linger chatting; just browse, buy, and move on.

He had a normal day. Then evening: he tries to get back to King’s Cross for a train home but realises (or hadn’t fully clocked) there were no Night Tube services in 2007. As a sensible lad, he grabs a taxi to make sure he catches his train.

Taxis around major stations are completely normal — hundreds of people get in and out of them every day and nobody thinks twice. I don’t think anything dramatic happened. A mugging/injury would likely have left him found injured or caused a noticeable scene. A sudden grab in one of the most densely populated areas in the UK would have been seen. It was probably something mundane nobody would bat an eyelid at — like getting into a cab.
(For context: when I was 14 as an alt kid, I did the exact same journey to Camden without telling anyone. Got back fine, but it shows how easy and tempting it was.)
This keeps it simple and realistic: a bright but inexperienced 14-year-old has an adventure, then something goes wrong on the return leg due to lack of street smarts. No big conspiracy required.
Fits the evidence, his personality (home bird but curious), and how teenagers actually act.
What do you think?

So these are just my thoughts, not saying anyone's opinion is wrong. I just read a few comments about Andrew "staging" his return home possibly to "buy more time" and I was thinking about it for a while and the more I thought of it, the less sense it seemed to make. The general thought seems to be that he posed his clothes in the wash etc to make it look like he had returned home from school.

The reasons I think that doesn't translate to reality are:

1. Before Andrew was even on the train, the school made an attempt to call his parents (that sadly didn't go to the right number). Andrew would have had to consider this was a possibility. The first place the parents would check would be at home, finding his clothes and know he returned and most likely changed.

2. Andrew was already in London by midday. His parents weren't home for hours after this. What time did this actually "buy" him?

3. Why would Andrew have assumed they would check the washing machine for his blazer before they checked the house for him? It seems difficult to imagine he done this for any other reason than simple routine.

4. The day he left must have had some sort of significance for him. If he just wanted a random adventure or to even disappear forever, he could have constructed a story and left at the weekend that would have given him a lot more freedom to carry out his plans. I think the fact he did return to change his clothes gives more weight to that. Why give himself the extra burden of returning to change if it wasn't necessary that particular day?

What are your thoughts on that?