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.
* 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
- 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.
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.'
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.
'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,..'
'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.