- 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 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."
"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.......