A charlatane called Rachel North (Rachel McFadyen) who runs a suspicious blog called "Rachel From North London" has made a lot of money and publicity out of claiming to have been on the carriage bombed on the 7th July 2005. BUT why has she always been so fit and well? How has she heartlessly made so much money and created so much publicity when no one else has wanted to? Why does she specialise in false accusations? Who can back up her claims? What is the TRUTH? Is her story a SCAM?

Saturday, 28 June 2008

Rachel North has all the characteristics of a scammer

Rachel North whose probable scam we expose below, has all the characteristics of a female scammer. She has :-


  • A deep desire to be accepted in a "niche" of society which does not accept her for who she is and never will. She is desperate to be regarded as a member of the Sloane ranger class, but she is a Liverpudlian Vicar's daughter whose face would better figure on an episode of Brookside. She is terrified that upper/middle class Britain will not accept her
  • A need for attention from a man who does not give her any. Her husband was not there when she was raped ( if she ever really was) and often stays working until 2.00 am in the office and now she's gone on holiday without him. It looks like he married her to shut her up and the scene she made over her marriage was chronic- it could have put Mills and Boon out of business
  • A pattern of making frantic cries for attention through sympathy, throughout life.
  • A mixed palate of strange views which don't add up
  • A fixation about anonymity to the point of obsession (and fraud?)
  • A tendency to fabricate stories about others who appear to naturally posses what she lacks in terms of style and sophistication which is natural and which can't be imitated
  • A tendency to lay claim to revelations that amount to the overwhelming and the fantastic, Here is just one example we can provide, complete with broadcaster who fell for her delirious sounding claims like a moral fool. She is making amazing claims about how she cried her heart out with frantic grief at relevelations that came to her from MI5. She promises to deliver. Strange though, no one hears about these revelations ever again.

Quote extract from scammer Rachel containing a fantastic claim, she wrote:

"But what I found out was devastating. First, whispers, rumours. Then, facts, and I checked, and followed up, and I sat with what I knew, and sometimes I cried. And I bit my lip and waited...
It was, and is, not just about a failure of intelligence, but a failure to use intelligence. A failure of imagination. A misguided belief in a 'Covenant of Security', that was never security; that was a lie.
And for me, it is about the screaming I hear, still, in the darkness, when I sleep.That might have been avoided, knowing what I know, what they knew, what we will all know, soon. And so I wait, and I write, and I wish, for what is coming soon..."

  • An outsize ego that lays claim to incredible revenge episodes
  • A tendency to surround herself with anyone abusive provided they defend her stories
We believe that if her life circumstance had been different a blog like this one would be exposing her for giving herself false Dukedoms and dipping into employers accounts and taking millions while pretending that she was something and someone else.

We are receiving comments challenging Rachel's story about her wounds. For effect, Rachel has claimed that she was wounded in the carriage bombed on July the 7th, and a bone was protruding from her arm. Most people are too intimidated to challenge her story. We have condensed our response onto this post.

We think that Rachel stumbled off the train and saw the press flood the scene, and thought 'I'm a story.' But she knew that she'd have to come up with something better than any of the other witnesses, who like her were on the other carriages.... so she could take the front pages of the newspapers. She said to herself 'Just a little lie.... I'll say I was on the bombed carriage....'

Rachel said on her blog: " My mouth was so dry. My lungs felt full of choking dirt and I became aware of a bleeding gash full of glass in my wrist and that I could see the bone in my arm, and then I felt sick."

Also

"I realised I needed to clean my cut as it was full of grit, and I was bleeding, so I held my arm above my head and breathed in and out hard.But I also knew I didn't need an ambulance - it was a nasty gash, not a maiming."

There was a journalist that she spoke to outside the station. If her story about the bone protruding from her arm is true, she will have been bleeding profusely and in need of an ambulance. You can only lose a limited amount of blood before fainting and dying, and the wound she clearly describes is enough to cause that type of bleeding. She covers that by saying that when a car picked her up she fainted in the car, but no mention of bleeding? So the journalist who she talked to outside will have seen her terrible wound won't he?

If our suspicions are correct a terrible fraud has been committed against the bomb victims.
The journalist who she talked to outside the station will have seen her terrible wound won't he? He doesn't mention it though, and he doesn't tell her to get medical help either?

When she was talking to him was she holding her arm above her head? Also, if you are bleeding that badly from being wounded to the bone in your arm why do you hold your arm above your head? Maybe she was not wounded to the bone.

We think Rachel was on another carriage further down the train and was grazed on her arm when the train crashed to a halt because everyone will have been thrown down when it came to a halt. She had a graze from being flung to the floor of the train. She held her hand above her head to stop the blood flow on a graze or for other reasons. If she had suffered the wound she describes...being able to see her own bone... she would have been covered in blood and requiring an ambulance and she was not at all. She was chattering to reporters outside the station.

The account she gave the Telegraph follows:

Rachel McFadyen, 34, of Highbury, north London, said: "It was so dark and we were using light from people's mobile phones.
"I was in the first carriage and the driver emerged and told us he was going to try to get us out. We were all telling everybody to shut up so we could hear what he was saying.
"He told us he was trying to have the track turned off so we could walk to the next station. We were passing the information back along the carriages. Everyone was just scrambling to their feet and trying to help one another.
"It was about 25 or 30 minutes before we could get off. People were crying and sobbing and one woman was just screaming her head off.
"We started filing off the train through the driver's carriage and we made our way cautiously along the tunnel. The driver was telling us not to touch the track because he didn't know if it had been turned off.
"All the way we kept reassuring each other, saying 'We're going to be fine.' It took about 15 minutes to get to Russell Square.
"When we got out I noticed my wrist was bleeding. All our faces were black. Everyone was looking really shocked.
"I immediately phoned my partner then my parents, who live in Norfolk, to tell them I was OK. I said to my parents 'I've just got off the train; I've escaped the bomb.' They hadn't even heard what had happened."

She was telling the terribly wounded people who were trapped in the front bombed carriage, where she says she was, to "shut up" so she could hear what the driver was saying? (That is kind and considerate?)
Did she telephone her parents and her partner with her arm 'in which there she could see the bone held over her head,' probably not. She told the Telegraph that she only noticed her wrist was bleeding when she got out of the station. If she could see her bone in her arm she would have MOST CERTAINLY noticed her injury before then. She would have been screaming from the start, not telling everyone in the bombed carriage which she claims she was in, to "shut up" so she could hear the driver.

"She says that "everyone was scrambling to their feet", you can imagine this if they were in the other carriages but not in the bombed carriage. Rachel obviously was not in the bombed carriage. People were not scrambling to their feet in the bombed carriage. Rachel also said 'It was about twenty-five or thirty minutes before we could get off. People were crying and sobbing and one woman was screaming her head off'. However there were many more than that screaming in the bombed carriage... according to Rachel's writing a week later..... also according to to the wounded witnesses who were in the bombed carriage. So Rachel was not on the bombed carriage. Not if you look at what she told the Telegraph straight away.

If Rachel can:

Show us her wound and prove she was injured to the bone
Show us CCTV from Finsbury Park Tube Station
Show us caring concern for the injured and people who died instead of complete indifference to their fate and their feelings
Produce witnesses who can confirm her story about being in the bombed carriage
Write one thing that adds up

We will withdraw our suspicions.

A media executive called Rachel who was by an amazing coincidence on the bombed carriage itself who just happens to be a personal mate of the London editorials, come on, how stupid are you.

She gave the London papers a story and they wanted her to keep it going. Like all scammers she had no idea that things would go so far and that she wouldn't be able to withdraw and retract.

One commenter has written in to say that he has noticed that Rachel has made different claims about her situation inside the bombed carriage. Sometimes she says she was ten yards away from the blast and sometimes she says she was seven feet away. Which was it? Those are two very different positions. We suspect she says what she does so no witnesses from the bombed carriage can contradict her claim that she was in the bombed carriage. They chanced not to see her because she was in a different place to them. Right?

Rachel often says that the fact that the carriage was so tightly packed, protected her from the force of the bomb blast which is why she is perfectly OK and not wounded. Consider the force of a bomb bast on a building. Her story about being protected by the density of other passengers crowding round her is complete BS. . OBVIOUSLY. But we expose in our post below the fact that she said that ' she felt a huge power lift her up and throw her to the floor....' so which was it? Was she densely packed in like a sardine among other passengers so that a ten foot away BOMB had no effect on her at all? Or did this 'huge power' that she later described on a T.V. programme lift her out of the densely packed crowd and bang her to the ground .......? Yeah..... right.......

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

What is this about her wounds from July 7th? She doesn't appear to have any at all. She says a bone protruded from her arm and she (quote) 'knew she didn't need an ambulance?' Nobility or a good fraud? if you have a bone protruding from your arm you need an ambulance. She just left it - so, what became of her arm?

Anonymous said...

This is a harsh way of accosting the facts; if you were in court you would be shown the door# downstairs.
Nevertheless the evidence against Rachel is disconcerting and you are probably right.

never in that carriage said...

Accordingly, we have removed the hard joke about the reporter. But remember this woman is a cruel scammer not a victim.

Anonymous said...

I am going to keep on and on saying this to you: Rachael WAS in the bombed carriage. Why are you attacking her in this cruel way? I see that you do not put my earlier comment through. I am a survivor also, why do you not attack me as well? I and other survivors have become aware of this blog since you left comments advertising it on other sites.

There is CCTV, medical evidence, an interview with a reporter outside hospital, describing her injury, there is police evidence, forensic evidence, eye witness evidence, just like there is for almost all of us who were there.

Why do you think someone who wasn't there would be campaigning for an inquiry and talking to the media who could expose any fraud at a moment's notice? If someone was a fake, the last thing they would want is a full inquiry into the incident!!!

I am reporting this blog.

You should be ashamed of yourself. I know you are reading this.

You should be ashamed of yourself. This blog is the lowest of the low.

I am going to look for the news article interview with her outside hospital and then you will see that you are wrong. The reporter described her injuries and her shocked state.

Angry survivor of carriage one said...

Okay, here is your evidence from a reporter who confirms her shock and the gash to her arm. The report was taken outside hospital, not Kings Cross, we evacuated to Russell Square, not Kings Cross in the first carriage.
‘Everything went black’

By Nicholas Timmins, Matthew Garrahan, Gary Silverman and Dino Mahtani in London

Published: July 7 2005 18:34 | Last updated: July 7 2005 18:34M

Rachel McFadyen was in the first carriage of a southbound Piccadilly line train when she heard an “almighty bang” and feared she could no longer see.

“Everything went black,” she said, still shaking with shock, her face grey, her fingernails blackened from the dust hurled up by the blast. “I thought at first I had gone blind.”


This was the experience of passengers as blasts went off in several London Underground trains.

Ms McFadyen, 34, a media executive, was a minute away from King’s Cross station when the bomb ex-ploded, leaving her with a deep gash to her right arm.

But when the dust settled, the passengers on the Piccadilly line train carried on, Ms McFadyen said, as the citizens of London had done in past crises.

“Some people started crying and struggling,” Ms McFadyen said.

But what was amazing was how people kept each other calm and helped each other out, and even made jokes, saying if anybody’s boss gives them grief this morning we are going to tell them where to get off,” she added.

The experience of Ms McFadyn and her fellow Piccadilly line passengers was repeated across London as the chaos that followed the bombings gave way to tension – and then the eerie quiet of a July London day.

At Russell Square, stunned passers-by watched as ambulances and a police van screeched towards the scene of an explosion on a bus. Police, fearing another blast, cordoned off streets and urged crowds out of a park.

Medical staff rushing to Russell Square Underground station carried equipment in makeshift plastic bags. As they waited for casualties, three hospital officials near the station discussed whether they would place priority on injuries to heads or limbs.

Marks and Spencer em-ployees huddled in Leadenhall Market following a bomb scare at the company’s shop on Gracechurch Street while police also cordoned off Fenchurch Street.

Workers from a government office on Red Lion Street stood silently outside after fleeing because a suspicious package had been spotted near Holborn police station, according to workers who had left the building.

St Paul’s cathedral was closed to the public shortly before 11am as a security precaution. Three officials in red robes stood guard at the door as tourists stood on the steps outside, admiring it under their umbrellas. The City, London’s financial district, teemed with people evacuating their offices, many walking in silence as they tried in vain to get a signal on their mobile phones.

Shops along Cheapside closed early, while motorists heeded warnings to stay out of central London, leaving the streets largely free of cars, despite the waiving of the congestion charge for the day by Transport for London.

With London Underground and mainline stations closed, many workers faced long walks home.

As he walked across London Bridge in search of transport, a Lloyd’s insurance broker from Beckenham, in Kent, who declined to be named, said he was “trying to get home as quickly as possible”. But he promised to be back at his desk on Friday morning. “Don’t let the buggers beat us.”

Among the crowds of people walking across London bridge, away from the City and towards one of the main railway stations serving the suburbs was John Turner, a telecoms sales manager, who was at work opposite Aldgate station when one of the bombs went off. “I heard the blast and automatically knew it was some sort of bomb.”At the American Express offices near Liverpool Street station, the company sent its workers home shortly after the bombings.

“Most people can work from home and we have other offices in London, so we should be OK,” said Duncan Mcvey, of American Express, who had to make it back to Brighton, normally a two-hour train journey. “Nobody panicked.”

Hendrik Egner, his colleague, was due to fly to Zurich yesterday so he could attend a concert. But he left the office without his passport and was unsure what he would do.

Bob Carter of XL decamped to the local Starbucks with two colleagues to drink lattes after they were evacuated from the offices of the insurance group.

“I was coming through King’s Cross this morning when they made us all get off the train,” Mr Carter said.

“I had to walk from the other side of the city. The whole thing is surreal.”

That feeling was heightened by the HMV music store on Oxford Street, which played the Neil Young song Helpless at full volume for pedestrians who found themselves heading to work on foot.

“Helpless, helpless, helpless,” went the refrain. “Helpless, helpless helpless.”

Additional reporting by Frederick Studemann

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

never in that carriage said...

That newspaper report supports our theory. She is joking about what excuses to make to her employer at work in a heartless way. This is not the behaviour of a woman who was in the bombed carriage. It is the behaviour of a heartless charletane.
She has got a graze on her wrist that is clear but it is also clear that she cannot possibly have been severely wounded in the way she describes or the reporter would have called an ambulance of course.
People in the other carriages will be a bit grey and sooty but there is not much evidence of this on the wounded survivors faces. This is because the bomb was a chemical bomb.
We feel you are upset because the rose coloured glasses have been removed from your eyes

Here's your evidence said...


The journalist who she talked to outside the station will have seen her terrible wound won't he? He doesn't mention it though, and he doesn't tell her to get medical help either?


Yes, and here is the journalist, confirming the wound.

Rachel McFadyen was in the first carriage of a southbound Piccadilly line train when she heard an “almighty bang” and feared she could no longer see.

“Everything went black,” she said, still shaking with shock, her face grey, her fingernails blackened from the dust hurled up by the blast. “I thought at first I had gone blind.”


This was the experience of passengers as blasts went off in several London Underground trains.

Ms McFadyen, 34, a media executive, was a minute away from King’s Cross station when the bomb ex-ploded, leaving her with a deep gash to her right arm.

But when the dust settled, the passengers on the Piccadilly line train carried on, Ms McFadyen said, as the citizens of London had done in past crises.


The fact that you are being given the evidence you ask for, and then discounting it proves that you are not interested in the truth or in evidence at all, you are just interested in writing evil things about bomb survivors. How can anyone 'show' you, an anonymous blogger, their scars? Or CCTV? Why do you think the survivors have access to the CCTV? Or the forensic evidence? It is with the police - are you stupid or something?

Go and get me some CCTV to prove you live at your address. Oh, you can't, so you must be a liar. Stupid.

That's why your blog has been reported. This is just a catelogue of disgusting attacks on survivors of 7/7 and as I am a survivor myself I am very angry about it.

Anonymous said...

"Angry survivor of carriage 1" can you prove who you are? Because from here it looks like you are an exprienced prank blogger.

never in that carriage said...

"Here's your evidence" you seem to be contradicting yourself in an extreme fashion. First you tell us that CCTV proves that Rachel was in the bombed carriage and then you tell us that we are "stupid" for assuming that July 7th survivors have access to CCTV. So we are to blame for pointing out that Rachel cannot back up her claims? So we are the stupid ones to question the evidence?

You could be some greasy reporter and you probably are. If you want to send us evidence we will be interested but don't send us newspaper reporter BS.

We do not believe that you are a July 7th survivor at all.

Anonymous said...

I'm a male survivor of carriage one, and if you think I am giving you my name so you can set up sick blogs about me, you are mistaken, but how about you give me your address or a place where we can meet, and then you can get a very close look at my scars for yourself and we can have a little chat and you can tell me what you think about me and other survivors being scammers to my face.

You are advertising this blog all over the place, you have left comments on the J7 blog so you must be keen for people involved in 7/7 to come and read this stuff, and you say that you are interested in seeing and hearing evidence, so I am offering to meet you and you can look at the scars in my face and my hands, real close up.

Name your time and name your place and I will be there with some evidence you can see for yourself.

But you are too much of a coward I expect so you just decide to attack women survivors anonymously.

Sick.

Anonymous said...

one of Rachels Internet groupies

Anonymous said...

The police have the CCTV you stupid idiot.

Yeah, right, and they usually hand the tapes over to victims so they can put it on youtube in order to shut up some stupid anonymous coward who likes to get their kicks by attacking bomb victims.

There is CCTV such as was played at the trial going on and there is medical evidence and forensic evidence, and if the lady you are attacking was a fraud, it would have BEEN FOUND OUT A LONG TIME AGO.

If she was a fraud, why would she be spending time asking for an inquiry? Knowing that an inquiry -a full public investigation - could expose her as a fraud?

Dumbass. Why would she be meeting other survivors, from every carriage of the train, knowing any of them could turn around and say - no - you were not on carriage one, you were on on a different carriage?

Dumbass.

If she was a fraud, why would she be talking to the police and the media and the government, who have investigated her claims and checked them out? Dumbass.

Why would she make up a story about her arm, when anyone could ask to look at her arm and check the scar was there? Dumbass.

You keep writing this crap and I'll keep coming back to say you are a stupid coward who gets their kicks from attacking survivors and when another survivor answers back and provides evidence, can't cope with the heat.

Dumbass. Sick, stupid and a dumbass.

Want to meet up? Want to see the scars from glass that I got on my face hands? I'm happy to show you, and you can call me not genuine and a scammer to my face.

Tell you what, I'll bring a reporter along from my local paper as well. You can compare the story - with pictures of the glass cuts - he did on me on 8th July with the new story about how angry I am that some sicko is going about writing this crap.

But you are too much of a coward to say this stuff in public and on the record, because you know how offensive it is, so you just write your blog on the internet and advertise it on 7/7 sites - hiding your name and your face. If you had any guts you'd put your name to your sick lies.

Anonymous said...

'One of Rachel's internet groupies'?

No, I'm a survivor who read you advertising your sick little site on the J7 blog, which I check now and again, especially round the anniversary time.

You can come and see exactly who I am by posting up a time and a place to meet and we can have a little chat, with a reporter there.

How about it coward?

Anonymous said...

The first comment did not appear in the comments box .... we would not stop commenters.

Liar, you have blocked at least three of my comments.


Including the ones where I suggest that you give me a time and a place where we can meet up with a reporter there, and you can see exactly who you are talking to, see my scars and have your photo taken along with all the stuff you have said about survivors of the bombings being scammers.

Come on, we're waiting. Are you a coward as well as a liar?
I guess anyone who likes to attack survivors anonymously on the internet must be.


I'm pretty sure I have guessed who you are now...

...which means I might just phone that reporter any way.

never in that carriage said...

Sorry but you need to produce evidence to contradict our suspicions . We have not said that the July 7th bomb survivors are scammers. Not once. It will have been easy to tell other survivors that she was on carriage 1. People probably didn't recognise her after the trauma. She would not have seen more than a very small group of people who could easily not recognise her after the event. Once on the tracks she could start making up her story. Sorry but the case against her being in carriage 1. is strong.

Anonymous said...

What 'evidence' is this lunatic producing here? this is just some nutty blogger leaving anonymous comments......

newanon said...

Challenging the clearly fraudulent evidence of a well known person will ruffle a few feathers. It is important that people can see the process. About the inquiry. Rachel spends much time asking for other people to be investigated and the upshot of this is that no one has had a good look at her lies.

Anonymous said...

true

never in that carriage said...

These aggressive comments appear to be typical of the kind of abusive person that Rachel surrounds herself with. No evidence or intelligence and they can't answer one question in a controlled or thoughtful way.

Anonymous said...

Rachel spends much time asking for other people to be investigated and the upshot of this is that no one has had a good look at her lies.

LOL you are SO STUPID!

People asking for full, thorough, public investigations know they will be thoroughly investigated themselves!! Especially if they are challenging the government - the Home Secretary, ffs - and security services.

The first thing the government and security services do is run a FULL background check on that person. If the person was a scammer they would leak it to the press and run it in huge headlines the next day! They don't want an inquiry - this would be the perfect way to kill it off - expose the person asking for one as a fraud! You can bet Rachael, who ha smet the Home Secretary several times, and the security services, has been 100% checked out and that there is a full file on her.

The news media, if they are going to back someone asking for an inquiry, would check several times to make sure they were the real deal - they would hate to have egg on their faces.

That's why anyone who is a scammer would never be the person asking for a full inquiry! It would be suicidal!

Anyone who was a scammer would just take the compensation money and say as little as possible, not repeatedly ask for all the facts to be investigated and to give evidence on oath.

Is that the best you can do?
LOL at you - you're crazy.

If you didn't want survivors to come and point out that you are writing crap, why are you advertising your blog on 7/7 websites?

never in that carriage said...

So now you admit that you are not a bomb survivor. It was obvious. In respect of the public inquiry Rachel North knows that she is at a dead end and that she won't get one. We suggest that she makes all this noise to stop people changing their sights and investigating HER.

Anonymous said...

How many people have commented here?? Are they survivors or n/a im confused!

never in that carriage said...

It looks like maybe two of Rachel's aggressive crowd leaving angry comments , no one of any relevance who can produce any information.

Anonymous said...

I have said I am a survivor and that is exactly what I am. I don't know why you are so unable to understand this.

I have just explained to you

a) That Rachael is challenging the government and security services so has to be aware that she will be totally checked out.

b) That the government and security services do not want an inquiry so they only way to try to get one is to talk to the media and try to embarrass them into it by making it into a big story.

c) This involves being a determined, relentless campaigner and talking to the media regularly, writing a blog and so on.

Nobody who was a scammer would bother to do this - it is a hard,unpaid, thankless task and I for one am grateful that she does it, because I couldn't. I don't have the energy for it and I would not be able to cope with the abuse she gets.

As for 'relevant information', I have suggested that you name a time and a place and meet me, and a reporter whom I will bring along with me to witness it. I am, as I have explained to you many times, an angry survivor of carriage one as you will see for yourself.

I am asking you why you are insulting Rachael, and by extension, all survivors, who cannot meet your ridiculous criteria of producing CCTV and other evidence to suit the whim of an anonymous aggressive blogger who demands it whilst publishing insults

I was there too, I have the scars to prove it as well and I am happy to meet you so you can see for yourself and get the evidence you refuse to accept.

But you are too much of a coward and you do not want to look at the evidence. That makes you a conspiracy theorist I believe and a coward to boot.

never in that carriage said...

Let's assume that you are a bomb survivor. How do you or the people doing the checking out know that Rachel was on carriage 1? You may be grieviously deceived and abused. She may well be an impostor seeking attention. The security services are not omnipresent. They can't know where she was when the bomb went off can they? Whether you want to accept it or not the evidence shows Rachel North in her true light and she was not on carriage 1. Honest survivors do not keep altering their evidence faster than a flock of golden geese lay their eggs.

Anonymous said...

I know she was on carriage one because

a) Her story exactly matched my own story and experiences and remember she told her story within hours of the bomb going off, long before she could have had time to talk to anyone else who was there, like me. She knew things that only a person on carriage one could have known - the driver's accent, the instructions he gave to evacuate and go down a little ladder, the tracks possibly being live, the tunnel dust which choked us which we all thought was smoke, the darkness, the using mobiles for light - and she volunteered them, unprompted, freely, before anyone else, because she posted her account on a small internet message board, not to the media, within hours. 2 journalists talked to her right outside the hospital where she had been treated and I have shown you the journalist's description of her which includes her injuries. One of the other survivors remembers how Rachael spoke to them so she didn't have to. If she was a scammer, why did she give them her full name and such an honest, detailed account account? How could she have known what went on in carriage one unless she was there?

b) Other people on carriage one remember her voice, and others remember her face from when we were all arriving at Russell Square station. Only carriage one people evacuated to Russell Square station. The back of carriage one and all the rest of the train went back to Kings Cross.

c) I have met one of the girls whose hand she held in the moments after the explosion.

d) Like most if not all of us, Rachael has given her statement to the police who have made a computer simulation of exactly who was standing where on the carriage relative to the blast. They have used advanced forensic techniques to do this, including looking at what detritus was dropped on the train and fingerprints and other clues, plus intensive cross-matching of witness statements.

Just stop it, for pete's sake.

I can't be bothered to carry on with this, because it's obvious that nothing I say will make you understand just how offensive your blog is to people like me. You are insulting survivors of a terrible tragedy at the most sensitive time of the year and there is no need for it.

It is disgusting, what ever you think about Rachael or anyone else on the trains or buses who speaks to the media. There is no way you should be publishing such disgusting rubbish as this blog.

Especially when it is so easy to demonstrate that she was there!!

What the hell is your problem? What business is it of yours to demand answers from people like me? I have botered to come over here and explain to you and still you carry on.

It is disgusting.

never in that carriage said...

Sorry but the only point you nearly have is about Russel Square. But, other survivors from other carriages could easily have gone to Russel Square. Everything else you're talking about, she could have known from other people on the other train carriages. The driver wasn't going to have a Maltese accent was he? Don't tell us, he has a London accent. And she could have got his accent from anywhere. Her story seems to tie up with yours so how come you didn't see her or hear her in carriage 1. in all of that time? When you were in carriage 1, and when you evacuated the train hey? You didn't see her go down the ladder. Probably everyone went out down ladders. You ought to have seen her come out of carriage 1. don't tell us she flew to Russel Square. We believe that survivors from other carriages went through to Russel Square. Understandable. There was hardly a sign saying 'Trespassers will be prosecuted' was there. Rachel's descriptions all fit people in the other carriages.

Anonymous said...

My guess is that most of the responses purporting to confirm RN's presence on the Picadilly line train are penned by the arch-scammer herself.

If she was where she was where she claims to have been on the morning of july 7th, she would by now be instigated legal proceedings against all those who have cast doubt on her story. In reality, she huffs and she puffs but she knows that if she ever pursues the legal option she will have to answer to every single contradiction amongst the millions of words she has penned over the past three years.

Somehow I don't think that's about to happen!

never in that carriage said...

Looking at the anonymous defensive comments again they could well have come from Rachel. They are written in her style. Some. We do not censor comments.

Anonymous said...

If Rachael goes 'legal', she would not only have to answer to every inconistany amongst the multiple versions of her 7/7 account, the medical records would have to be examined as part of the verification process.

The timeline of her posts from in the aftermath of 7/7 would make interesting reading. There's multi-tasking ... and then there's Rachael!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous (RN?) wrote:

'Especially when it is so easy to demonstrate that she was there!!'

As with everything else about 7/7 ... we are still awaiting the definitive proof!

Apart from her own posturing and ever-changing account, there is absolutely zero irrefutable evidence which places her "7 or 8 feet" from where the 'bomb' exploded.

As with much of 7/7, the physical evidence does not support the official (ie. Rachael's) version of events.