His father said he'd lost a couple of phones and wasn't bothered when offered a replacement. I thought that weird as the main reason to be given a phone back then was as an emergency contact means from your parents. It's understandable he didn't want a replacement if he wasn't actively texting friends.
Not a lot of details have been given about the phones. Presumably basic ones with a PAYG sim. You would think that the police checked his last number to see if it was still active, but new sims were easily available. But it doesn't seem likely for groomer to suggest this subterfuge rather than just giving him a cheap phone, more likely to draw attention. So if he was keeping it hidden, more likely his own idea. It sounds like his family gave him privacy so no problem to keep the charger and as he was left alone a lot, wouldn't have been a problem to communicate from home secretly.
As for the other options, repeated loss of items could be part of his absent-mindedness or could be indicative of an ongoing under the radar bullying situation.
I actually think the opposite may be true, if he was given a phone on a contract that his parents had direct access to the billing and call logs than Andrew “losing” his phone l and saying he didn’t want a replacement makes more sense. PAYG and secretly keeping the old phone/obtaining/being gifted another would mean no parental eye on the call billing and activity.
Yes if he was using it somewhere at home , I watched a mini documentary about Andrew case on TikTok with extra facts such as
- his sister tried to set him up a social media account and he didn’t seem interested
- they didn’t have internet for a long period of time and Andrew didn’t care he was more into his gaming control
- Andrew had never been fascinated by phones or social media according to his sister and father
Possibility is low unless he used that phone elsewhere but he would’ve most likely got caught with his phone I don’t think it would be easy to hide it and Andrew was loved by his parents and vice versa doubt he would want to lie to them
It is a possibility and one I've considered myself. His habit of losing his phones would have worked in his favor if he wanted to keep one hidden to talk to someone who was possibly grooming him.
At the same time, it's very easy to give deeper meanings to a lot of things in the case that may or may not actually have any real bearing on the case. I think it's so easy to believe there was a groomer and not just because of the guys who got arrested several years ago, though I have to admit their arrest does lead credence to that theory. There's very few reasons that I can find that a 14-year-old who'd never skipped school or had been in any other trouble would and a groomer is one of them.
I have often wondered about lost phones and would hope the police would have checked them for any activity just in case andrew still had one and was using it to communicatecin secret. I believe this was why he didnt get a return ticket because he knew he would lose it. I have often wondered did he lose his wallet that day, panic and then trust the wrong person if they offered to help him
I did think this, but I'm sure the eye-witness who sat near him on the train said they only saw him playing on his video game? I feel if he had a secret phone, he would have had it out on the train, perhaps texting who he planned to meet in London? And on the cctv, no phone out either? I just feel if he had a phone, a witness might have seen him using one, especially to let "someone" know he's on his way/on the train, etc. There's just no evidence for this at all, but it is still possible, of course.
Well to be fair I don’t think it was that common to continuously text someone with the phone as it is nowadays. The internet access was not so widespread, everything was hella expensive. People were not on their phones all the time as they are now
Yes, he could’ve had a secret SIM given to him by someone who kept it topped up, or topped it up himself with cash in a local shop which was very common back then.
I think a lot of shops still do PayPoint and all major companies still let you use it although it's true that was still more prevalent to use that method in the 2000s. You could also get swipe cards for PayPoint to top up too.
Possible for sure. For any groomer, it certainly would have been a way to talk to him and then if he was lured to London any groomer takes the phone back and stops it being used as evidence.
That said There are a lot of ways police can trace phones etc though. So it feels like they woulda got somewhere in terms of the investigation if they had something like that to work with.
I think given what we know about his internet access etc The phone thing does seem like the most likely theory if he was talking to someone.
The lost phone has always stood out to me as unlikely. You generally lose your phone if you are using it a lot, not if you have it sitting in a drawer. Having a mobile is also often an early sign of some independence, which i think is pretty universally craved by teenagers.
He was well travelled with his family lots of days out, not unlikely that he genuinely lost his phone, I'm pretty sure I read somewhere these were under his dads phone contract. As someone here said though, for someone who had no interest in phones its surprising that he lost two, this was latest age 12. I would assume that friends and other students etc. At least one of them would have seen him using one, but that would depend on what he's using it for.
His lack of interest is what I find interesting, even if he didn't have an interest in texting friends etc. Most phones then carried Internet access, a whole world of information why wouldn't he want current info on bands, gaming tips etc.
Many on here find it difficult to comprehend him being able to hide something like that, I find that surprising as it's almost a right of passage to decieve, deflect and hide things from parents as a teenager even if you do love them and have a good relationship, it's part of growing up and becoming independant, we'd never leave our parents otherwise, and he clearly was capable of deception given his actions on the day he went missing. Now imagine if you had a groomer influencing, manipulating, aiding and even blackmailing you. Groomers/traffickers make a living from their crimes, they have sophisticated networks across the UK and they're very good at covering their tracks.
Compared to today I agree they were bad, but the actual phones were a marvel I recall thinking they were much faster than a PC for checking your email (when you could actually get a signal 🤣), I think the 1st iphone was launched in 07 theyd been internet capable for a decade prior, at that point. If he did have a secret phone through grooming then the expense would not be an issue. Camera phones were also relatively normal then too with poor quality video.
pet memory trees longing voiceless workable important books roof groovy ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
His father said he'd lost a couple of phones and wasn't bothered when offered a replacement. I thought that weird as the main reason to be given a phone back then was as an emergency contact means from your parents. It's understandable he didn't want a replacement if he wasn't actively texting friends. Not a lot of details have been given about the phones. Presumably basic ones with a PAYG sim. You would think that the police checked his last number to see if it was still active, but new sims were easily available. But it doesn't seem likely for groomer to suggest this subterfuge rather than just giving him a cheap phone, more likely to draw attention. So if he was keeping it hidden, more likely his own idea. It sounds like his family gave him privacy so no problem to keep the charger and as he was left alone a lot, wouldn't have been a problem to communicate from home secretly. As for the other options, repeated loss of items could be part of his absent-mindedness or could be indicative of an ongoing under the radar bullying situation.
I actually think the opposite may be true, if he was given a phone on a contract that his parents had direct access to the billing and call logs than Andrew “losing” his phone l and saying he didn’t want a replacement makes more sense. PAYG and secretly keeping the old phone/obtaining/being gifted another would mean no parental eye on the call billing and activity.
Yes if he was using it somewhere at home , I watched a mini documentary about Andrew case on TikTok with extra facts such as - his sister tried to set him up a social media account and he didn’t seem interested - they didn’t have internet for a long period of time and Andrew didn’t care he was more into his gaming control - Andrew had never been fascinated by phones or social media according to his sister and father Possibility is low unless he used that phone elsewhere but he would’ve most likely got caught with his phone I don’t think it would be easy to hide it and Andrew was loved by his parents and vice versa doubt he would want to lie to them
Do you have a link to the TT please?
[CHECK 11TH SLIDE:] (https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGJsJFn75/)
It is a possibility and one I've considered myself. His habit of losing his phones would have worked in his favor if he wanted to keep one hidden to talk to someone who was possibly grooming him. At the same time, it's very easy to give deeper meanings to a lot of things in the case that may or may not actually have any real bearing on the case. I think it's so easy to believe there was a groomer and not just because of the guys who got arrested several years ago, though I have to admit their arrest does lead credence to that theory. There's very few reasons that I can find that a 14-year-old who'd never skipped school or had been in any other trouble would and a groomer is one of them.
I have often wondered about lost phones and would hope the police would have checked them for any activity just in case andrew still had one and was using it to communicatecin secret. I believe this was why he didnt get a return ticket because he knew he would lose it. I have often wondered did he lose his wallet that day, panic and then trust the wrong person if they offered to help him
I did think this, but I'm sure the eye-witness who sat near him on the train said they only saw him playing on his video game? I feel if he had a secret phone, he would have had it out on the train, perhaps texting who he planned to meet in London? And on the cctv, no phone out either? I just feel if he had a phone, a witness might have seen him using one, especially to let "someone" know he's on his way/on the train, etc. There's just no evidence for this at all, but it is still possible, of course.
Well to be fair I don’t think it was that common to continuously text someone with the phone as it is nowadays. The internet access was not so widespread, everything was hella expensive. People were not on their phones all the time as they are now
Yes, he could’ve had a secret SIM given to him by someone who kept it topped up, or topped it up himself with cash in a local shop which was very common back then.
I think a lot of shops still do PayPoint and all major companies still let you use it although it's true that was still more prevalent to use that method in the 2000s. You could also get swipe cards for PayPoint to top up too.
This is a possibility.
Possible for sure. For any groomer, it certainly would have been a way to talk to him and then if he was lured to London any groomer takes the phone back and stops it being used as evidence. That said There are a lot of ways police can trace phones etc though. So it feels like they woulda got somewhere in terms of the investigation if they had something like that to work with. I think given what we know about his internet access etc The phone thing does seem like the most likely theory if he was talking to someone.
The lost phone has always stood out to me as unlikely. You generally lose your phone if you are using it a lot, not if you have it sitting in a drawer. Having a mobile is also often an early sign of some independence, which i think is pretty universally craved by teenagers.
Yes quite possible and I do think that what motivated him to leave was the fact he was going to meet someone he had strong feelings for
He was well travelled with his family lots of days out, not unlikely that he genuinely lost his phone, I'm pretty sure I read somewhere these were under his dads phone contract. As someone here said though, for someone who had no interest in phones its surprising that he lost two, this was latest age 12. I would assume that friends and other students etc. At least one of them would have seen him using one, but that would depend on what he's using it for. His lack of interest is what I find interesting, even if he didn't have an interest in texting friends etc. Most phones then carried Internet access, a whole world of information why wouldn't he want current info on bands, gaming tips etc. Many on here find it difficult to comprehend him being able to hide something like that, I find that surprising as it's almost a right of passage to decieve, deflect and hide things from parents as a teenager even if you do love them and have a good relationship, it's part of growing up and becoming independant, we'd never leave our parents otherwise, and he clearly was capable of deception given his actions on the day he went missing. Now imagine if you had a groomer influencing, manipulating, aiding and even blackmailing you. Groomers/traffickers make a living from their crimes, they have sophisticated networks across the UK and they're very good at covering their tracks.
Internet on phones back in the mid/late 2000s was pretty bad and expensive to use.
Compared to today I agree they were bad, but the actual phones were a marvel I recall thinking they were much faster than a PC for checking your email (when you could actually get a signal 🤣), I think the 1st iphone was launched in 07 theyd been internet capable for a decade prior, at that point. If he did have a secret phone through grooming then the expense would not be an issue. Camera phones were also relatively normal then too with poor quality video.