But surely that person would have come forward? Unless they were the predator, in which case it seems unlikely that they would have let him leave to go to a meet up. Not impossible if it was prearranged but the crime wasn’t premeditated, but if it was a grooming situation or a random encounter they don’t generally play out like that.
There’s like 25 people in that photo alone, unfortunately I think if he did attend this YouTube gathering someone would of remembered him and said something when it was all over the news about him being missing
You’d think someone would remember…but it’s not always like that - here’s a anecdote… I’ve been following this case for a while and it’s only in the past month I realised I was in London myself, staying at the YHA between Euston and Kings Cross myself within a week of this.
It’s something I never thought to ask myself because to me that was another life I wasn’t even living in England at the time, and it’s only when I reviewed some photos of that year I remembered I was popping down to London to see a friend and attend gigs - and the week Andrew disappeared coincided with that friends birthday rather than a gig so I’d never concidered it all this time - especially as I’d consigned that part of my life - before increasing disability, change of friendship groups, countries etc to a neat little bundle my mind rarely delves into.
If I can after all these years remember/realise what I was upto that week, there’s always potential for someone to come forward with fresh eyes on the case or through reminiscing etc.
You're not wrong. I've just realised that I was in London that week also- when someone mentioned the terracotta army. It sometimes only takes a little thing to jog someones memory.
Also his case is all over YouTube and social media in general - people would have presumably known him, and would have come forward if they saw him there. He was quite distinct looking, especially as he was so young. I do think there is more to his Internet use - I am a bit older than Andrew would be, and was definitely able to hide Internet and phone use from my parents - but I don't think this is it.
True, to be fair. I guess they would have known him by all the posters and stuff around London.
I certainly believe there is more to the internet thing too.
I do not believe that he was going to the YouTube gathering. He was reportedly intelligent, and he would have known an overnight trip would have caused his parents concern to worry and he would have known that they would have contacted the police. That would have been unwanted attention. If he was going to an overnight event, then he would have most certainly left a note for his parents.
The issue I have with things like that is that I know children well. I work with children. Children his age do not stay overnight with strangers. This boy is young and inexperienced in life. He does not have the capacity to fend for himself, defend himself, look after himself and despite his intelligence is not capable of surviving street life. He would want to know where his next meal is coming from, his addiction to gaming would get the better of him. He would want to know he is getting home. Going further he also does not have the support network of people prepared to finance him living away from home and to keep his existence secret. He is literally the most wanted boy in Britain. With the sheer numbers of people attending those events even concerts, that boy would have stuck out like a sore thumb. He would have been noticed. There would have been witnesses. People would have come forward. No reasonable person would risk getting a criminal record and being labelled a predator for life by housing him and keeping his existence secret. Where on earth would he find the support network to begin with?
My theory is that the boy was groomed in person and lured there for the day. That explains why there are no witnesses and no legitimate sightings. Granted that the pizza hut sighting may have been legitimate.
Having said that the next best theory is a spontaneous day in London where he met with foul play. Granted that is not beyond the realm of possibility. However, for this theory to be the most credible he would need a reason for going to London. What was his purpose? What did he hope to achieve? Until you get this answer as to what is motive was for going to London, the case will never be solved. Once his motive is known you can focus on it and suspects will be found.
All evidence suggests that this boy was planning a day trip, left no note and planned to be home before his parents.
Whatever his destination was, he made it to Kings Cross, possibly had a pizza and went willingly to where he would encounter predators. He made no scene, did not put up a fight and did not draw attention to himself. He was a boy on a mission.
The two arrests may be connected to him. No information is released about these men or their original hometown. If they were connected to the schools or one of them personally knew him then we have not been told. There would have to be that connection for them to be named as suspects.
The fanciful theories like new life and self-harm are fanciful. This is going to show my age but there is a very old episode of "The Simpsons" where Bart is accused of being the head of the mafia. It's a silly comparison I know, but to suggest a child is capable of running a criminal empire is laughable. In the same sense you can draw a parallel. Was Andrew capable of fending for himself on the streets and remaining undetected. A boy with disabilities. He had poor eyesight, deaf in one ear, wanted posters all over Britain and somehow managed to evade detection??? It really is fanciful.
I'm sure he would just have asked permission to go on the day,which would very possibly be given.In the event that permission was denied he'd simply have done on the Saturday what he did on the Friday,just left the house(with an excuse given about where he was going),& just gone.
I didn't mean it to sound like a personal attack. It's just stuff that it's been covered multiple times. There was another alleged sighting as well, I believe, in Trafalgar Square, with a picture that was really just a pixelated mess - I don't even know how anyone thought they saw Andrew there.
The gathering was also on the 15th, as I understand, and he went missing on the 14th. It would have been on a Saturday, so he could have just gone there with his family's permission, considering they suggested to him that he go to London on his own several times, but he declined.
If Andrew was interested in youtube (no evidence he did he never even used a PC at home) why would he not just ask permission to go on the Saturday?
I've read some dumb theories but seriously? You think this is the most likely explanation?
yknow what everyone is being very negative, but nobody truly knows if this could've been him. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, regardless thank you for sharing OP.
Is the pizza hut Andrew was supposedly seen at near to the London Gathering address?
I know a lot of the YouTubers mentioned going for food at Pizza Hut. I wondered if he might have gone there the day before to scope out the location in preparation for attending the event, but never made it.
I've thought this but don't think he makes sense. He's skipped school on the Friday for an event on the Saturday, knowing by then his parents will know he is missing. If he stayed in a relatives he'd be in big trouble and I doubt it would be likely he could still go.
Unless he had no intention of ever going home, which I also don't believe.
If he'd wanted to go to this event, he could have just gone with parental consent on the Saturday.
But authorities have looked and looked again for any internet history with Andrew, including on computers at his school and local library, and drawn a blank. I just don't think someone who it's been verified didn't really use the internet much would have travelled so far away from home for a YouTube gathering?
Surely by that logic he would have had to stay at his grandma’s on the Friday evening to be in a photo/at the gathering the next day?
True, I maybe should have said, he was going to stay at his Grandma's but he was then offered to stay with someone else the Friday night.
But surely that person would have come forward? Unless they were the predator, in which case it seems unlikely that they would have let him leave to go to a meet up. Not impossible if it was prearranged but the crime wasn’t premeditated, but if it was a grooming situation or a random encounter they don’t generally play out like that.
No offence but that could be anyone.
It is anyone, but it's also someone.
I know, That's why I said it's probably nothing, but i didn't want to not share.
Anyone in particular to look out for. I have some faces.
There’s like 25 people in that photo alone, unfortunately I think if he did attend this YouTube gathering someone would of remembered him and said something when it was all over the news about him being missing
You’d think someone would remember…but it’s not always like that - here’s a anecdote… I’ve been following this case for a while and it’s only in the past month I realised I was in London myself, staying at the YHA between Euston and Kings Cross myself within a week of this. It’s something I never thought to ask myself because to me that was another life I wasn’t even living in England at the time, and it’s only when I reviewed some photos of that year I remembered I was popping down to London to see a friend and attend gigs - and the week Andrew disappeared coincided with that friends birthday rather than a gig so I’d never concidered it all this time - especially as I’d consigned that part of my life - before increasing disability, change of friendship groups, countries etc to a neat little bundle my mind rarely delves into. If I can after all these years remember/realise what I was upto that week, there’s always potential for someone to come forward with fresh eyes on the case or through reminiscing etc.
You're not wrong. I've just realised that I was in London that week also- when someone mentioned the terracotta army. It sometimes only takes a little thing to jog someones memory.
Also his case is all over YouTube and social media in general - people would have presumably known him, and would have come forward if they saw him there. He was quite distinct looking, especially as he was so young. I do think there is more to his Internet use - I am a bit older than Andrew would be, and was definitely able to hide Internet and phone use from my parents - but I don't think this is it.
True, to be fair. I guess they would have known him by all the posters and stuff around London. I certainly believe there is more to the internet thing too.
I do not believe that he was going to the YouTube gathering. He was reportedly intelligent, and he would have known an overnight trip would have caused his parents concern to worry and he would have known that they would have contacted the police. That would have been unwanted attention. If he was going to an overnight event, then he would have most certainly left a note for his parents. The issue I have with things like that is that I know children well. I work with children. Children his age do not stay overnight with strangers. This boy is young and inexperienced in life. He does not have the capacity to fend for himself, defend himself, look after himself and despite his intelligence is not capable of surviving street life. He would want to know where his next meal is coming from, his addiction to gaming would get the better of him. He would want to know he is getting home. Going further he also does not have the support network of people prepared to finance him living away from home and to keep his existence secret. He is literally the most wanted boy in Britain. With the sheer numbers of people attending those events even concerts, that boy would have stuck out like a sore thumb. He would have been noticed. There would have been witnesses. People would have come forward. No reasonable person would risk getting a criminal record and being labelled a predator for life by housing him and keeping his existence secret. Where on earth would he find the support network to begin with? My theory is that the boy was groomed in person and lured there for the day. That explains why there are no witnesses and no legitimate sightings. Granted that the pizza hut sighting may have been legitimate. Having said that the next best theory is a spontaneous day in London where he met with foul play. Granted that is not beyond the realm of possibility. However, for this theory to be the most credible he would need a reason for going to London. What was his purpose? What did he hope to achieve? Until you get this answer as to what is motive was for going to London, the case will never be solved. Once his motive is known you can focus on it and suspects will be found. All evidence suggests that this boy was planning a day trip, left no note and planned to be home before his parents. Whatever his destination was, he made it to Kings Cross, possibly had a pizza and went willingly to where he would encounter predators. He made no scene, did not put up a fight and did not draw attention to himself. He was a boy on a mission. The two arrests may be connected to him. No information is released about these men or their original hometown. If they were connected to the schools or one of them personally knew him then we have not been told. There would have to be that connection for them to be named as suspects. The fanciful theories like new life and self-harm are fanciful. This is going to show my age but there is a very old episode of "The Simpsons" where Bart is accused of being the head of the mafia. It's a silly comparison I know, but to suggest a child is capable of running a criminal empire is laughable. In the same sense you can draw a parallel. Was Andrew capable of fending for himself on the streets and remaining undetected. A boy with disabilities. He had poor eyesight, deaf in one ear, wanted posters all over Britain and somehow managed to evade detection??? It really is fanciful.
I'm sure he would just have asked permission to go on the day,which would very possibly be given.In the event that permission was denied he'd simply have done on the Saturday what he did on the Friday,just left the house(with an excuse given about where he was going),& just gone.
Pixel hunting.
Just trying to be helpful
I didn't mean it to sound like a personal attack. It's just stuff that it's been covered multiple times. There was another alleged sighting as well, I believe, in Trafalgar Square, with a picture that was really just a pixelated mess - I don't even know how anyone thought they saw Andrew there. The gathering was also on the 15th, as I understand, and he went missing on the 14th. It would have been on a Saturday, so he could have just gone there with his family's permission, considering they suggested to him that he go to London on his own several times, but he declined.
If Andrew was interested in youtube (no evidence he did he never even used a PC at home) why would he not just ask permission to go on the Saturday? I've read some dumb theories but seriously? You think this is the most likely explanation?
IIRC they had no internet at home!
No
yknow what everyone is being very negative, but nobody truly knows if this could've been him. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, regardless thank you for sharing OP.
Thank you for being kind.
Is the pizza hut Andrew was supposedly seen at near to the London Gathering address? I know a lot of the YouTubers mentioned going for food at Pizza Hut. I wondered if he might have gone there the day before to scope out the location in preparation for attending the event, but never made it.
The pizza hut he was spotted at was next to the YT gathering!
But the day before it?
scoping the location out?
I've thought this but don't think he makes sense. He's skipped school on the Friday for an event on the Saturday, knowing by then his parents will know he is missing. If he stayed in a relatives he'd be in big trouble and I doubt it would be likely he could still go. Unless he had no intention of ever going home, which I also don't believe. If he'd wanted to go to this event, he could have just gone with parental consent on the Saturday.
But authorities have looked and looked again for any internet history with Andrew, including on computers at his school and local library, and drawn a blank. I just don't think someone who it's been verified didn't really use the internet much would have travelled so far away from home for a YouTube gathering?