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?

Friday, 18 July 2008

An historic charlatane..& Rachel North and frontal lobe damage

Rachel "North"

We have received a comment criticising us for our spelling of 'charletane'. We should have used the French spelling 'charlatane.'

The commenter sent this:

"Beg pardon, but your spelling of 'charletane' is incorrect.

charlatane
nf (char-la-ta-n')

* Celle qui s'efforce, par ses paroles, d'attraper les gens. Les marchandes du Palais sont des charlatanes. [Richelet, Dict.] Ce que j'ai toujours aimé en vous, madame, parmi plusieurs autres genres de mérite, c'est que vous n'êtes point charlatane. [Voltaire, Correspondance] J'aime mieux la charlatane Mlle Durancy [une actrice] qui enchante le public. [Voltaire, Correspondance]

Adj. La race charlatane des devins.

Ces charlatanes nouvellement arrivées à Paris, Anti-menagiana, p. 230.

It is quite correct as a description of Rachel North."

We found the picture on the web. We have corrected 'charletane' in the introduction.

Some posts back people were asking us to publish information on the abusive people who Rachel surrounds herself with. We see the ghouls and charlatans in the picture we display, who creep up behind the charlatane and hide behind her skirts. They appear to have some sort of a deal. Her charlatane speech conceals their criminal acts and they protect her schemes with violence.

This is very like Rachel's people. She appears to be linking to a cup full of these people but not all of them we note.

It has been brought to our attention that Rachel's " Internet crowd" consist of at least one murderer and many hard ex convicts. We've had a look. We don't particularly want to get involved but it appears that the abusive types on the Internet that Rachel employs to do the dirty work involved in "bumping off" ( getting rid of) her critics have these points in common,

  • They have something to hide ( justified police incidents or long stretches in jail or some equivalent embarrassment)
  • They are capable of raving abuse and pity parties ( held in honour of themselves on the same comments thread)
  • Low IQ
  • No promising activity in life
  • Cannot understand variation
  • Vanity
  • Celebrity worship (it's been pointed out that North is not a celebrity but a wannabe and that some of her apparent gang also falsely consider themselves to be celebrities of a type until someone bursts their bubble)

We understand that for most of her blog posts Rachel keeps her blog at a distance from the abusive Internet activity that she encourages but that she goes and grabs these people on email and PM whenever there's violence or some transparent , sad evil scheme to be done on her behalf before she rushes to the newsapers with a picture of her face.

On the set of "Taking Liberties". Campaigning for victims rights or "drunk again"?

It is not clear from Rachel's statement to Richard and Judy whether she is claiming that her accused attacker and rapist (year 2002) (who she describes as an experienced psychopath while suggesting that he was a young teenager) gave her forty separate injuries on her face or on both her person and her face.

We can see that there is in the picture we provide above, what looks like a fairly large and visibly very old mark on Rachel's forehead . It looks like a scar. This is visible in the enlarged picture which you can obtain by clicking on this picture. Rachel's scar is not visible in any other pictures including close up pictures taken with flash or in broad daylight. You can apparently only see it under very bright flash lighting as in the picture. If it is a scar, ( and it seems to be) she has spoken about it on her blog. We provide the link to her statement here. She claims that it is the result of running (skidding) into a door handle when she was a young girl, getting a serious wound on the forehead and being taken to hospital, where she was given stitches on her forehead. She says this happened twice, and she says that this explains the 'T' shape of the scar. That is exactly what it looks like. Rachel describes the wound as a 'T shaped scar.' She writes:

'When I was small I skidded playing chase at school and accidentally smashed my head into a wall, a year later, I crashed into a door, also playing chase; both times I had to have stitches on exactly the same place and so now I have a T shaped scar on my forehead.'

Rachel makes no claims on her blog about being scarred on the forehead on July 7.

We wonder whether this mark she got as a young girl gave her the inspiration for her other, obviously outlandish claims. Such as being given forty wounds on her face and her person by a teenage attacker in 2002. Such as being two metres away from a bomber in 2007. Hard question. But we wonder. Another hard fact: if a similar sort of mark had been caused by an attacker in 2002 then the wounds she claims on her blog that her attacker gave her on her face ( she claims that there were forty wounds from her attacker altogether) would have a similar appearance. We provide a link to Rachel's account of being "attacked and taped" by a seventeen year old in 2002. Rachel makes a point of stating that she was badly scarred above her lip by her attacker in 2002 who (she claims) punched and hit her viciously in the face and also stubbed a cigarette out on her skin on her face and caused a deep wound. (Rachel doesn't claim that the teenager struck her on the forehead and knocked her out. She claims that she pretended to be dead during the act in order to escape him).

None of her claims about being attacked or hurt stand up under the bright light of scrutiny. One claim does: her claim to have had a nasty serious knock ( two in fact) on the forehead as a young girl. That claim seems to be true and confirms our statement that wounds always leave a lifelong mark. The scar she got as a young girl will have been a very big scar on her forehead then. It looks as if Rachel was severely damaged in the head in childhood.

The rest of her face is perfect and has never been wounded, as with the rest of her person. Of course we are glad to see that. Our case is that we don't think people should be being shafted or lied to by this person. We don't think people should be lied to about serious incidents.

If the spotlight had revealed evidence of past wounds caused by a psychopathic attacker or a bomb we would be extremely sympathetic to Rachel North. But it does not. It reveals the opposite.

We were sent this photo link by a commenter, of Rachel " North" and the well known 'J' a solicitor who she married last year. Enlarging the picture does not reveal Rachel's wrist in full. There seems to be no mark or scar on Rachel's wrist. 'J' appears to be more of an Insurance salesman to look at. Rachel was desperate to get married. This is one of the few pictures in which she looks decent.

Looking at the Internet we see that the men Rachel gets out to abuse people involve not only murderers but murderers that are notorious. One of these appears to be the axe murderer John Hirst ( or Hurst) with whom Rachel appears to be particularly pally. We provide a link to an article on this notorious murderer here. We find it totally incongruous that a woman who cries rape and attempted murder should be so pally with this person and rely on him to harm other people on her behalf. This appears to be the least of it. How can anyone invest in this woman's claim to sincerity?

'Let us use the words of Barbara Calvert QC, who prosecuted Hirst in the trial that followed. "On the evening of June 23 they were watching television when Mrs Burton asked the defendant to collect some coal from the shed. He went to the shed, got the coal and at the same time picked up a heavy hand axe. He returned to the living room, put the coal on the fire, and then approached Mrs Burton and hit her, perhaps seven times, on the head with the axe. He then went to the kitchen to make coffee and drank it, waiting for Mrs Burton to die."

There was some dispute at the time whether Hirst had struck the victim six or seven times. It seemed important, signifying a higher or lower level of frenzy. After finishing his coffee, it was stated, Hirst walked six miles to Reading police station, where he gave himself up. The man at the desk thought he was drunk and told him to go home. "No," Hirst said. "I killed her and she's dead." '

We learn that Rachel North fiercely intimidates those who criticise her and employs illegal means. Pass round the motif created by another blogger below if you wish.

One commenter has made allusion to the importance of Rachel North's probable frontal lobe impairment which often brings consequences. Even mild concussion in the frontal lobes can cause permanent damage. We print this commenter's advice on people with Rachel North's condition just below.

'Impaired strategy formation and planning, especially in unfamiliar situations, there is inappropriate behaviour with difficulty using social cues and information to direct, control, or change personal behaviour. Inhibition impaired. This leads to perseveration (continuing to attempt a task that is obviously failing). They may confabulate. Behavioural changes include breaking rules and taking risks, not following task instructions and gambling. (Gambling involves assessing risk and outcome). Social and sexual behaviour inappropriate or altered from previously. In social reasoning the left lobe is more important than the right. Pseudodepression , while the indifference is like "la belle indifference" of hysteria. Pseudopsychopathy (because of the lack of social inhibitions) See also Poor voluntary eye gaze.'

We have discovered a similar case to Rachel's in respect of fraud and fantasy in the field of Journalism and we provide the link here.

As regards Rachel's claim about the cigarette being stubbed out on her face in 2002. We have received comments from Rachel's supporters on this point which are graphic and we will not print them. She claims that an attacker stubbed a cigarette out on her face, wounding her. Rachel states that she felt it. She states that there was no mark and no scar because of the blood on her face. ( Convenient?) If this is how it was, blood will have had to be at least a half a centimetre thick and a serious blood flow of the kind that preceeds loss of life caused by wounding that leaves lifelong scars. Rachel has no scars except a scar that suggests that she was brain wounded and brain damaged as a child. We will allow this point because Rachel goes into graphic detail in her account of 2002. We will not print a row on this subject in the comments box. We do not intend to distress anyone with detail.

We could ask: was there any blood at the scene ? If it wasn't Rachel's blood at the scene whose was it? We wonder if this point was ever checked out. The police were understandably in shock after Rachel threw herself naked over their cars. The accused attacker, a teenage foreigner, had run off.

Rachel's few supporters appear to have all succumbed to Rachel's hard worked Snow White and the Seven Dwarves image. There is no such a thing as Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. We provide a link to the story of Mr Cressman who was murdered by his psychopathic fiance who did everything she could to put Cressman in the frame.

Some useful links as regards criminal insanity and damage to the frontal lobes in childhood follow.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7420099

"A patient is reported who displayed marked confabulation after frontal lobe damage, and whose pattern of performance on memory tests was not typically amnesic. He initially displayed both "fantastic" and "momentary" confabulation, but several months later showed only "momentary" confabulation, which was apparent on direct questioning. This change in type of confabulation was paralleled by improved performance on frontal lobe tests, although his overall pattern of performance on memory tests was unchanged. It is suggested that severity of frontal lobe dysfunction determines the type of confabulation displayed."Aggression and lack of impulse control, fantasy and confused memory are aspects of frontal lobe impairment." "


http://www.brainsource.com/criminal_brain.htm

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=432&scid=

'In 1986 Dr. Lewis and Dr. Pincus published a study of 15 death row inmates that found all had suffered severe head injuries in childhood and about half had been injured by assaults. 6 were chronically psychotic. Far from invoking an "abuse excuse," Dr. Lewis said, all but one had minimized or denied their psychiatric disorders, figuring that it was better to be bad than crazy. Many, she said, had been so traumatized that they could not remember how they had received their scars. The answers had to come from childhood medical records and interviews with family members.
-
No one suggests that abuse or brain damage makes a murderer, but Dr. Lewis says that while most damaged people do not turn into killers, almost every killer is a damaged person. She concludes that most murderers are shaped by the combination of damage to the brain, particularly to the frontal lobes, which control aggression and impulsiveness,..'

http://www.competence-capacity.com/

'Frontal Lobe Disorders--The frontal lobes are the largest part of the human cerebrum; damage to the frontal lobes can result in devastating or mild impairments in personality, initiative, judgment, efficiency of recall (an aspect of "memory"), impulse control, and other aspects sometimes referred to as "executive functions." --Frontal lobe impairment can impact many functions relevant to aspects of forensic psychiatry.'

We do not suggest that Rachel is a 'death row inmate'. We merely draw attention to the fact that frontal lobe injury in childhood is considered by psychiatrists to be a very serious matter.

We have been looking at T shaped scars in respect of brain operation procedure. Removing a brain tumour or lesion appears to often leave what is described as a 'T shaped scar'.

We will not allow abusive comments about this woman's brain injury. It is acceptable to question her claims that she was two metres away from a bomb and that it was like a "big grizzly bear", that she has moles at MI5, that a teenager acted like something out of a Hollywood horror movie and all the other outlandish claims. It is not acceptable to laugh at her childhood brain injury and we won't allow it.

Even though Rachel has bullied and abused many different people for no reason at all, it is not right to drop to her level.

77 comments:

Anonymous said...

The historic aspect is nothing compared against the determined way Rachel surrounds herself with murderers and other redoubtables who do the dirty work of "bumping off" her critics for her. If her ancestors had been alive in Paris in the old times no one would have survived. There would have been a been revolutions, decaptiations and plots... o wait a moment....

Anonymous said...

See how RN has no shame. She advertises her passion for Glenn Clos eand the film 'Dangerous Liaisons'. On her profile page. says it's her top of the list. That film about cruelty and misery caused by one old charlatane and her rumours and gossips and campaigns against people and people who do her dirty work. In the end the gallery expose her "blog" - her letters to everyone -and she is doomed and has to take off her war paint and show herself.

never in that carriage said...

Rachel's profile revealing her preoccupation with Glenn Close.

http://www.blogger.com/profile/
04807921540492728422

Anonymous said...

Rachel's naive intrigue with this film is one of the more dynamically interesting aspects of her sham scam. Rachel enjoys cruelty and deception and finds it funny. This is a base instinct and not a skill. Her naive obsession with Glenn Close and her performance in the timeless classic shows that she feels the need for a role model. The charlatane of Dangerous Liaisons needed no such thing, nor, did she subject herself to the consequences of her own inconsistencies. Rachel's inconsistencies and panic outbursts would have made the French anti heroine laugh. She is only exposed after she attacks her own lover who hands the gallery the Ace.

She peels off her mask and pulls a face like an expelled jester.

We must wait for the day the new age charlatane attacks her husband the famous 'J', a solicitor she generously hangs on to to get herself out of scrapes, or, more suitably, for 'J' to tire of being her pug dog and expose the darker secrets of her insiduous and deceptive blog.

http://www.google.co.uk/
search?hl=en&q=glenn+close+dangerous+
liaisons&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Anonymous said...

The North is not exactly a celebrity. She is a woman who plays on a victimhood theme who pushed herself into the spotlight who can't let it go even if it means slowly exposing and disgracing herself.

never in that carriage said...

There is certainly an addiction there yes.

Anonymous said...

Addiction is an understatement! She must airbrush her armpits in her family snaps.

Anonymous said...

Not forgetting the amount she quotes her respectable journalists of great integrity on her blog.....

thankyou for this exposure. It was long waited for and long called for.

Anonymous said...

I suspect that we are all waiting for legal proceedings to be initiated against this blog. It will be very interesting to witness the intellectual and emotional gymnastics that Rachel brings to bear if she does elect to go down this route.

The evidence which led to the appearance of this blog in the first place, is now being expanded on a daily basis. Rachel and her 'team' should be getting very, very nervous.

It would be advisable for Ms. North to seek professional help for her compulsive condition but my prediction is that she will probably go for the complete 'nervous breakdown', blaming it on the 'unsubstantiated' claims that she was being less than truthful regarding her whereabouts on the morning of July 7th.

Where there's drama to be milked, you can bet your bottom dollar that she'll milk it.

... blackberry alarm just off in the background!!

Anonymous said...

I would like to see her try it. Take a look at that picture. Not only has she never had a criminal wound inflicted ever shes got perfect skin! Shame about the face.

Two metres from a bomber, total crap. And she's drunk on the takings.

Anonymous said...

and smirking

never in that carriage said...

We are not interested in rachel's team and their signs of apparent violent dementia.

We are asking Ms North to substantiate all her claims.

Anonymous said...

'for 'J' to tire of being her pug dog and expose the darker secrets of her insiduous and deceptive blog'

LOL

he keeps them in his trousers

Anonymous said...

Pissed as a fart.

Anonymous said...

Good work.

Nothing wrong with hard questions.

What worries me about Rachel's 2000claim is she dresses it up and fills in.

She says she was held down and her attacker tied a wire round her neck. WOW,.. psycho story, maniac at large.

When questioned she explained that the wire was the wire from her electric toothbrush which was also hanging round her neck when the police arrived.

From psychopath maniac at large to hanky panky in the bathroom with a teenager who she let in to the house.

What was it?

Anonymous said...

The electric toothbrush hanging round her neck is totally awol. She could have just grabbed it or made that part up for effect so she could say "wire".

If this kid had intended a psychopath rape why would he forget his wire and knock at the door and wait to be let in. The Yorkshire Ripper would never forget a thing like that. He had his whole collection didnt he.

Rachel banns all comentary on this subject but I have been dying to ask that for ages.

And another thing; wouldn't the toothbrush wire have fallen off when she ran screaming out of the house and threw herself naked over a police car? Thats what she said she did. Then they called her bf whos a solicitor.

If that guy is innocent he was damned from then on.

How exhausted do you have to be to sprint out of the house naked and throw yourself over the front of a police car?

I would think it was the sight of their lives.

Anonymous said...

She throw herself over the front of a police car?

What are the odds against running out of your door, at any random moment and a Police Car coming down the street??

never in that carriage said...

Woody we deleted your comment because it could be misinterpreted as an inuendo.

You basically made the point tbat Rachel writes that while the act was happening her attacker got up and went to get the thing she claims was a 'wire' round her neck from the bathroom which turns out to have been an electric toothbrush wire. You asked what was happening while he went to get that 'wire.' Fair question.

You suggested that rachel's accused attacker could easily have been going to take a pee or trying to use the toothbrush.

Anonymous said...

'Where there's drama to be milked, you can bet your bottom dollar that she'll milk it.'

I would bet my last dime.

never in that carriage said...

If you have a dime left after Rachel has been talking to you!

Anonymous said...

The charlatanes of the French Court would sell to the public in the marketplace.

Anything from unusual wares to themselves. They were always looking for people to latch onto and they'd sell gossip for cash.

In a way they were the first media moles.

never in that carriage said...

We have seen that Rachel is always claiming to have moles at MI5.

This is a pitiful story and we don't intend to go into it much. We might devote a post to it.

Anonymous said...

You have a knack for pulling a whole pack of lies apart.


I don't know why we didn't see some of this before.

Anonymous said...

I think it could be a wrinkle.

Anonymous said...

I recall that Rachel has made numerous claims to have been privy to CCTV and other evidence which has not been released into the public domain.

If she initiates any legal action against this blog (or anyone else who dares to question the veracity of her accounts), she would have to substantiate every one of these claims to have been given 'special access' to pre-judicial evidence.

I was discussing this blog with a friend a few days ago and he told me that he had received some extremly abusive Emails from Rachel, when he was seeking to clarify some of her post 7/7 comments via another forum in 2006.

I asked him whether her would be prepared to put his correspondance with Rachel into the public domain. He told me that he would not be willing to post the Emails or PM's but he did say he would readily make it available, in the event of her initiating any legal challenge against anyone who he regards to be a genuine researcher into the events of 7/7.

Will she have the courage to mount a challenge? Somehow I think don't see it happening anytime soon!

never in that carriage said...

Someone seems obsessed with the idea of Rachel North mounting a legal challenge against this blog.

There has been no suggestion of this and we are not concerned by it as we are not doing anything illegal.

We are exposing Rachels rubbish. If you have a problem with that please take it up with the legislation.

Anonymous said...

There is no sense in arguing with Rachel North when she's off on a dramatic persuit.

She must have taken more than one knock throwing herself over those police cars.

Anonymous said...

If she has any bruises it ws probably fom throwing herself over the traffic nude.....

she can't have been too knackered if she was doing that!

Anonymous said...

She has no bruises.

She did in 2000 maybe, from hurtling herself into the street with no clothes on....

Anonymous said...

Whether she was raped or not i cant tell

looks like a fine one if you ask me

one thing, she gets off on drama

if she wants to write a drama telling the world she was raped shes gotta accept rejection

never in that carriage said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Jill_Saward

This woman is an obvious genuine claimant. She was raped by three men and there was forensic evidence.

We find it interesting that Rachel North would encourage people to stand against her in the by-election.

"On 24 June 2008, Saward stated in an article on her website that she was considering standing as a candidate against David Davis in the Haltemprice and Howden by-election. Her candidacy has since been confirmed. She criticised Davis for "saying nothing at all" about sexual violence issues while serving as Shadow Home Secretary; and stated that the DNA Database should be extended to help detection of sexual assault, and that there was a disparity between the "thousands" of people affected by sexual assault each year, compared to the detention proposals of the Counter-Terrorism Bill which "may not affect anyone at all"[5 "

Rachel is obviously not as sincere about campaigning against rape as she says she is.

never in that carriage said...

Our opinion is that Rachel is ridiculising a serious issue with her behaviour. As you say, rape is a serious matter and not an issue for Mills and Boon stories, money spinning, hype and melodramatic accounts that make no sense.

dr not said...

Listen to this wierd invented account from Rachel. She has deleted the part about running out into the street naked and throwing herself over the bonnet of a police car. Why she ever flung herself about the road in the nude is a big question since we learn that her accused "rapist" was already gone half an hour before the police arrived.

Looks like: she let him in, had a good romp which she later denied, then paints her accused attacked to be a maniac on the loose.

"As to feeling empowered; I never felt like a ''victim''. I held onto my power almost all the way through. I lost it only for a few moments, when he burst into my flat, and began to beat me, and I begged him to stop, and he told me to shut up, and continued to beat me, and make me his prisoner, his thing to abuse and humilate and hurt.

But then I got what control I could back, when I decided I would do anything necessary to stay alive. That was when I felt it, the power I never knew I had.

From the minute when he began raping me, and I disassociated from the attack, knowing he could never violate my essential self or rape my soul.

At the moment when I knew I had defeated his attempt to kill me by feigning my own death.

When I decided to come back into my body after he had left me; when I got to my feet, bound and escaped from the house and got help.

When I said to the police, I have been raped, find him.

When I let the police take the evidence of my body and my home and held nothing back, trusting that justice would come this way.

When my love came to me in hospital and his eyes and his smile showed me that we had had lost nothing, that we loved each other more for having nearly been so cruelly separated.

When I gave the police statement on video camera, and told all I could remember of the assault, and was not ashamed to speak of it; when I couldn't remember, I gave permission for a Professor of forensic Psychology to work with the police using new techniques on me in interview to unlock the suppressed memories locked down by masssive trauma-amnesia, even though I knew it would hurt me.

When I went out of my house, and went to the shops, even though I was nauseous with fear that he was somewhere waiting for me, to finish me off."

Techniques in interview to unlock surpressed memories about a rape? If you get raped you recall it,surely.

Dont smile at the part about J and she being so cruelly separated and reunited in Mills and Boon...

never in that carriage said...

Thankyou for your edit. We have published it. Please consider exactly what you want to say before posting.

Anonymous said...

http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2006/10/
drink-feck-drink-rape.html

here rachael is saying that she was drunk when she was supposed to have been raped, well she probably was

Anonymous said...

You people should quit while your ahead.

Its the time of year
Now that Spring is in the air
When that wet wet git with her girly curly hair
Makes another song for moronic holidays
That nauseate-ate-ates
In a million different ways

From the shores of Spain
To the coast of Southern France
No matter where you hide
You just can't escape her dance

Hold a chicken in the air
Pull a deckchair over your nose
Buy a jumbo jet
And then bury all your clothes
Paint your left knee green
Then extract your wisdom teeth
Form a string quartet
And pretend your name is Keith

Skin yourself alive
Learn to speak Arapahoe
Climb inside a dog
And behead an eskimo
Eat a Renault Four with salami in your ears
Casserole your gran
Disembowel yourself with spears

The Rachel blog is vibrating
The sound is loud and grating
Its truly nauseating
Let's do the dance again

Hold a chicken in the air
Pull a deckchair over your nose
Yes you'll hear this song in the holiday discos
And there's no escape in the clubs or in the bars
You would hear her blog if you holidayed in Mars

Skin yourself alive
Learn to speak Arapahoe
Climb inside a dog
And behead an eskimo
Now you've heard it fifty times
Your brain will spring a leak
And though you hate the silly cow
You'll be hearing her for weeks

Hold a chicken in the air
Pull a decjchair over your nose
Buy a jumbo jet
And then bury all your clothes
La la la la la
La la la la la la la
La la la la la
La la la la la la laaaaaaa

never in that carriage said...

We are slightly concerned about Rachel's Adams family types on the blogs.

We'll take your advice.

Good that you all enjoyed the exposure. Next time the Rachel woman starts up full swing just send everyone over here.

Anonymous said...

The claims she is making in the Sunday Times about wounds her accused attacker inflicted ought definitely to have left a permanent scar.

There are none.

Anonymous said...

That sort of woman always leads police in a fools paradise for sport

never in that carriage said...

'The claims she is making in the Sunday Times about wounds her accused attacker inflicted ought definitely to have left a permanent scar.'

We assume you mean

'The claims she is making in the Sunday Times about wounds her accused attacker inflicted are about wounds which ought definitely to have left a permament scar.'

Anonymous said...

The two bangs on the brain she got as a child might be very significant,

She will deny it.

As her habit of going out drinking with other men might be

Anonymous said...

http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/diagnosis/concuss.html

A site worth reading in respect of frontal lobe injuries experienced in childhood

moreonthe subject said...

http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40001903/

Frontal lobe impairment

Impaired strategy formation and planning, especially in unfamiliar situations,
There is inappropriate behaviour with difficulty using social cues and information to direct, control, or change personal behaviour.
Inhibition impaired. This leads to perseveration (continuing to attempt a task that is obviously failing). They may confabulate.
Behavioural changes include breaking rules and taking risks, not following task instructions and gambling. (Gambling involves assessing risk and outcome).
Social and sexual behaviour inappropriate2 or altered from previously. In social reasoning the left lobe is more important than the right3.
Pseudodepression with psychomotor retardation, while the indifference is like "la belle indifference" of hysteria.
Pseudopsychopathy (because of the lack of social inhibitions)

See also

Poor voluntary eye gaze

Anonymous said...

Rachel writes

Hello mother, hello father, here I am at Camp Grenada.
Camp is very entertaining,
and they say we'll have some fun if it stops raining...

I went hiking with Prime Minister Spivy.
He developed poison ivy.
You remember The Lord Chancellor;
He got ptomaine poisoning last night after dinner.

All the tube drivers
Hate the waiters,
And the lake has alligators.
And the head coach
Was no sissy,
So he reads to us from something called Ulysses.

Now I don't want
This to scare ya.
But my bunkmate
Has malaria.
You remember the leader of the Labour party...
They're about to organize a searching party.

Take me home, oh mother, father.
Take me home, I hate Grenada.
Don't leave me out in the forest where
I might get eaten by a bear.
Take me home, I promise I will not make noise
Or mess the house with other girls and boys.
Oh please don't make me stay!
I've been here ONE -- WHOLE -- DAY.

Dearest father,
Darling mother,
How's my precious little sister?
Let me come home if you miss me.
I would even let Aunt Bertha hug and kiss me...

Wait a minute...
It stopped raining!
Guys are biking.
Journalists are sailing,
playing baseball... gee, that's better!

Mother, father, kindly disregard this letter.

Anonymous said...

Rachael North's addiction for spreading herself all over the Internet has reached the limits of a coke abuser's last fix. She is incapable of realising that every conflict she encountered since she began she brought on herself. She probably googles herself daily, telling herself how everyone is as interested in her name as she is. She may be running about from computer to computer dialing up her blog to promote her stats turkey. Leaving aside her five computers and her six mobiles, her ten black berries. The Internet is a mirror on the wall in which she sees a different Rachel to maintain. Other media outlets play the same role. Reality and she parted company many years ago and everyone, stranger, husband, friend and official are roped into her fantasy realm.

never in that carriage said...

OK.

Good discoveries.

Anonymous said...

Whether she was brain damaged twice like Fred West is a bit of a mystery isn't it.

I wonder whether Rachel is ashamed of having one huge scar... she may be fabricating about the scar itself.

If it is one huge scar that little head burst straight open.

Anonymous said...

http://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/famous_criminal/2/biography/1/Fred_West.htm

When he was seventeen, a motorcycle accident left him comatose with serious head injuries, and a metal plate in his head that may, according to some experts, have affected his impulse control.

Another head injury incurred when falling off a fire escape at a local youth club caused additional injury, and possibly permanent brain damage to the young West.

Anonymous said...

I am at a loss to understand what Fred West has to do with your purported intention, that of uncovering a fraud? Fred West was a murderer. Are you suggesting your subject has tens of dead bodies buried in her cellar? I fail to see the connection.

never in that carriage said...

anon at 6:04

It looks like her head bust open twice in a big way. The horizontal scar looks as if it was a last resort in respect of sewing her forehead up in order not to interfere with a previous operation.

But there is no certainty there.

Anonymous said...

Doctors Coughlan and Kapur write comprehensively on the subject of fantasies and frontal lobe damage.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=486667

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7420099
"A patient is reported who displayed marked confabulation after frontal lobe damage, and whose pattern of performance on memory tests was not typically amnesic. He initially displayed both "fantastic" and "momentary" confabulation, but several months later showed only "momentary" confabulation, which was apparent on direct questioning. This change in type of confabulation was paralleled by improved performance on frontal lobe tests, although his overall pattern of performance on memory tests was unchanged. It is suggested that severity of frontal lobe dysfunction determines the type of confabulation displayed."

Aggression and lack of impulse control, fantasy and confused memory are aspects of frontal lobe impairment.

never in that carriage said...

The scar Rachel shows indicates that damage caused was severe.

Anonymous said...

This is hilarious.

You obviously can't tell the difference between cuts and bruises, a flesh wound and a severe blow.

Waste of time, all of this serious po faced diagnosis.

Go on, print this. Dare ya. Prove to me you're not biased, ignorant and mad.

never in that carriage said...

We do not stop people reacting how they wish and we are not po faced. We are allowing people to comment.

We do not agree with you about the injury, it obviously was a very serious childhood injury to her brain.

Anonymous said...

Who was that idiot- fool?

Rachael received stitches all the way across her forhead as a child, TWICE, it was obviously a "severe blow" that she received. TWICE.

She has no other scars and this childhood damage is the only "severe blow" she has ever had!

Anonymous said...

(from Anon at 7:00.)

Thank you for printing my comment. I withdraw the accusation of bias. But.

Cuts need stitches. Severe blows can give you concussion and no blood is spilled.

I rest my case.

Anonymous said...

I remember the Canon McFadyen stating 'Lightening really does strike in the same place twice', when speaking about Rachel.

Could he possibly have been referring to Rachel's childhood wounds rather than her alleged rape and carriage 1 experience?

Anonymous said...

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content
=a782350044~db=all~order=page

On traumatised families in denial ( Canon McFadyen).

Anonymous said...

Canon McFadyen's attitude to Rachel connects to her position on traumatic experience as a self excusing grace.

" Don't be hard on Rachel, it's not her it's that knock on the head."

" How could you all be so mean? I have had a nasty knock, it is not my fault, and now I am upset, my mouth is going square, and I am going to scream."

Question is has she had a bad time as an adult or is she fabricating stories to escape accountability for her actions?

never in that carriage said...

Commenter at 7:00

It is obvious that the wound Rachel received to the head in childhood was very serious.

We do not wish to be drawn into discussions on graphic detail. Your comment is obvious rubbish.

Anonymous said...

http://braininjury.com/symptoms.html


The extent and the severity of cognitive neurologic dysfunction can be measured with the aid of neuropsychological testing. Neuropsychologists use their tests to localize dysfunction to specific areas of the brain. For example, the frontal lobes play an essential role in drive, mood, personality, judgment, interpersonal behavior, attention, foresight, and inhibition of inappropriate behavior. The ability to plan properly and execute those plans is known as "executive function." Frontal lobe injury is often associated with damage to the olfactory bulbs beneath the frontal lobes.

Anonymous said...

When I was a kid it used to be smashing your head open,I wonder what that came to. It would happen to some kidand they'd be away for six weeks, then they'd be transferred to some special_ unit. @Mark smashed his head open.'

I believe this is one big scar and one big smash on this woman's forehead, it must have happened once.

It must have been massive. It would have covered her whole forehead.

Anonymous said...

Department of Neurology, University of Maryland School of Medicine.

Patient DT was examined 26 years after she acquired focal frontal lobe damage at 7 years of age. This report focused on several aspects of psychological outcome, including the empirical study of social development into early adulthood. Standardized measures of empathy, psychosocial development, and personality were analyzed, along with a moral judgment interview and patterns of adult social behavior. Results indicated that DT has a very limited capacity for empathic understanding, inadequate identity development, difficulties in vocational adjustment, and a concrete level of moral reasoning. Her social behavior and profile of test scores suggest that social development and adaptation have been arrested at early adolescent levels. We conclude that early frontal lobe damage has profound effects on social development, and that the frontal lobes provide a crucial neural substrate for social maturation.

Anonymous said...

Do you think Rachel has ...a very limited capacity for empathic understanding, inadequate identity development, difficulties in vocational adjustment, and a concrete level of moral reasoning..social development and adaptation have been arrested at early adolescent levels.?

Anonymous said...

http://antagonise.blogspot.com/
2005/07/bbc-survivor-blast-
discrepancies.html

There is a fight with Rachel about her claim about the bomb's timing. She gets the timing wrong it is not the same as the time recorded by carriage 1 passengers.

"The Antagonist happened upon this survivor account on the BBC web site from which the following excerpt is taken. Comments are given below:

'I thought I was about to die'

R from north London was in the bombed carriage of the tube train travelling from King's Cross to Russell Square on the Piccadilly Line.

"Everything went totally black and clouds of choking smoke filled the tube carriage and I thought I had been blinded.

It was so dark that nobody could see anything.

I thought I was about to die, or was dead. I was choking from the smoke and felt like I was drowning.

Air started to flood in through the smashed glass and the emergency lighting helped us see a bit. We were OK."


Source: 'R', Blast Survivor, BBC News


"Totally black" suggests no remnants of a fire from whatever type of blast occured.

Any sort of explosive device in such a confined space and containing so many people, papers and other flammable items such as clothing would have caused some sort of fire, even if only the smallest amount of explosive had been present.

Furthermore, if it is later claimed that there was any fire, the noticeable and reported effects of that fire would have been dramatically worsened as the "air started to flood in through the smashed glass" and the train would have been far from "totally black".

The sentence, "It was so dark nobody could see anything" also suggests no fire and that all surrounding electrical systems were out, as would occur in the event of a power surge.

No power to the train, or the tunnels, or the service lights that illuminate the entire length of nearly all Underground tunnels, nor any fire from the blast. All of this is entirely in keeping with MetroNet's original statement of a power surge, as reported to passengers across the Underground at the time, and to the world's media until someone, somewhere apparently decided otherwise.

Osama striking from deep within the caves of Afghanistan, or corporate manslaughter at the hands of private enterprise?

We've been duped before and, as the media circus steps up the stakes and perceived threat levels, hot on the heels of a 'credible' but non-existent threat that evacuated Birmingham City Centre last night - a story which has already dropped off the front page of the BBC web site - let us not allow the tragic and needless deaths of an ever growing number of innocent people to be posthumous party to us all being duped again.

Let the words and courage of survivors like 'R' be testimony to us all.

If you're still not convinced, maybe it's time to reveal the story of a telephone conversation that morning between two friends, one of whom was at a station, the other of whom had yet to leave for the station:

"Hi, it's me, listen don't bother coming to the station, son, it's absolute chaos."

Nothing unusual about that, except when you bear in mind that the conversation took place at 8.37am that morning, some ten minutes before the time now reported for the simultaneous train blasts that once took place over the course of an hour.

Maybe its also time to mention the continuous helicopter activity over central London between 2am and 5am for the three nights in the run up to 7/7. It probably has some connection with this story here.

Remember where you read it first and, if you don't read anything else here again, you'll know precisely why.

Posted by The Antagonist at 9:46:00 PM

Email this • Technorati Links • Add to del.icio.us • Related Posts from Sphere • Digg This! • Submit To Propeller • Subscribe to this feed

Tags: 7-7, Crevice 7/07, Farida Patel, Germaine Lindsay, Guildford 4, Hasib Hussain, Hasina Patel, Inquiries Act 2005, MI5, Mohammed Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, State Terror

12 comments:

Rachel said...

HOw DARE you?

You have absolutely misquoted me - the first part of my post clearly tells of the almighty bang, the clouds of choking smoke
the terrible injuries,the the maimings and the 26 deaths YES. DEATHS. FROM THE BOMB. IN MY CARRIAGE... I run agroup of 70 survivrs from that train. All of us call you an insulting. despicableliar. That was a bomb, you jerk. A BOMB.

You disgust me.
Monday, November 14, 2005 10:49:00 PM "

Anonymous said...

Rachel and finger pointing and sticking out her tongue and telling everyone the whole playground is on her side is well documented and there is no need to go into it here please. No comment box could manage the quotations.

never in that carriage said...

We don't intend to. We are looking into the bomb timing question thanks to the commenter who alerted us to this aspect. Send your items of interest in.

Anonymous said...

Is the purpose of this blog to attack every aspect of Rachel's life or is this really a genuinely unbiased attempt to learn facts, because I can't help noticing a bit of bias here. Do have personal isseus with Rachel? I think we should know.

never in that carriage said...

There is no bias here or anything personal. We think the brain injury aspect is very relevant in respect of Rachel's confabulations.

Anonymous said...

Rachael posted this on her blog a while back.

"Just posted this on the urban 75 forum and thought you chaps would
enjoy. Well, I was just contacted by the Mail on Sunday - wait for it - to see if I would like to do an 'upbeat, positive feature'.

'Like what?' I ask, suspiciously.

He explains that 'maybe a birthday? wedding? pregnancy? A happy
occasion, post the bombing.'

'Perhaps 'Bomb victims: What are they wearing this week?' I suggest. Or' Blast Fashion Tips: Match your lipstick to your stitches!'
Or 'The Kings Cross Diet: I lost 3lbs in 3 days with PTSD!'

'Are you, erm, taking the mickey?' he asks. 'It's, erm, not a fashion piece.'

'Look, I say. 'I'm writing anonymously for the BBC. I've posted on a London community website. I should have thought that anyone who'd read that would see I have no interest in appearing in a paper that peddles race-hate. And slags off Ken Livingstone, whose speech was inspirational. And what I and the other survivors are trying to do is get on with our lives. Not wheel out made-up feel good women's magazine bollocks to make Tory housewives feel good in Cheshire...'

'We're, um, not as bad as the Mail, ' he says, 'We're the Mail on Sunday, um, we'd take, um, a different tack...'

'I wouldn't, 'I said, getting into my stride, 'wipe my arse on
the Mail if terrorists had blown up every bog roll in London'.

'And the Mail on Sunday?' he says. 'You're, um, not keen on us either?'

'What do you think?' I say.

'Hmm, well, in that case, I wish you well', he says, 'and I hope that you, um, feel better soon...'

'Oh, I do, ' I say. 'I feel much better'

Best moment of the week"

Looks more like the attitude of a scammer than a terrorism victim.

Anonymous said...

and the logic of the last comment is ?

never in that carriage said...

Terrorism victims don't usually refer to bomb victims as "bog roll".

We find you to be a particularly stupid commenter and we must assume that you are one of Rachel's web henchmen.

percentagepoint said...

Are you going to make a new post?

You have been updating the Friday 18 July one but it would be easier to read if you make shorter posts.

Perhaps a post on the people Rachel has bullied and abused, and 'bumped off'?

Anonymous said...

You've said she heartlessly sells her story and is a scammer, but you have printed a story about her refusing to talk to a newspaper, the Mail.

If she was a scammer, wouldn't she jump at the chance to sell her story to the Mail?

But in the story you print she tells the journalist to go away...

never in that carriage said...

It is apparent that the Mail wanted an angle of their own and one that did not fit in to Rachel's plans.

never in that carriage said...

'You have been updating the Friday 18 July one but it would be easier to read if you make shorter posts.

Perhaps a post on the people Rachel has bullied and abused, and 'bumped off'?'

We are not going to cause those people any distress or make them vulnerable to Rachel's henchmen.

That was another stupid comment. Last warning.

Anonymous said...

'Perhaps 'Bomb victims: What are they wearing this week?' I suggest. Or' Blast Fashion Tips: Match your lipstick to your stitches!'
Or 'The Kings Cross Diet: I lost 3lbs in 3 days with PTSD!'

'I wouldn't, 'I said, getting into my stride, 'wipe my arse on
the Mail if terrorists had blown up every bog roll in London'.

'And the Mail on Sunday?' he says. 'You're, um, not keen on us either?'

'What do you think?' I say.

'Hmm, well, in that case, I wish you well', he says, 'and I hope that you, um, feel better soon...'

'Oh, I do, ' I say. 'I feel much better'

Do you think Rachel has ...a very limited capacity for empathic understanding, inadequate identity development, difficulties in vocational adjustment, and a concrete level of moral reasoning..social development and adaptation have been arrested at early adolescent levels.?


Ummmmmmm?