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?

Tuesday, 1 July 2008

Rachel is making fools of Richard and Judy..SCAM!

Most of the time Rachel North keeps her long sleeves on so that no one will see that she did not suffer an injury to her arm or her wrist on July the 7th. She pretends that she is modestly covering her injury. We provide a link to our post on Rachel's "injury" from July the 7th via this link. Here on Richard and Judy, she shows her arms and wrists many times. They seem to be perfect. This is the first time they were shown. There could not even have been a serious graze on her wrist or arm on July the 7th. Perhaps a graze a child of the kind that a child experiences when falling over in the playground. She is utterly unmarked. She is selling her book on July the 7th to an unsuspecting public and making fools of Richard and Judy. Why does her father put up with her disgusting scam?




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."

That's convenient. Do nasty maimings leave scars then? Where is the evidence of this nasty gash, and how could anyone possibly have survived a blast like the one pictured on this blog and walked away completely and utterly unmarked?

Daniel in the Lion's den!

We believe that rachel was never on carriage 1. of that bombed train and that her behaviour is a fraud against the people who have suffered injury and serious loss from being bombed on that carriage or suffered grief due to being close to someone who was on carriage 1. A stupendous fraud. Look at that Richard and Judy film again. See the part where Rachel is asked about her injuries. She tells Richard and Judy that she received glass cuts all the way up her arm from the effects of a bomb blast. ( That's not exactly what she told reporters when she got out of the station)...She touches and gently fingers her arm while she talks. Is she crazy to do that in front of millions of people? Her arm looks a dainty beauty. It has visibly never seen a wound in its life, least of all an extremely serious criminal wound. Neither, by the way, has her face. Wounds leave scars. Every time. Even small wounds.

One person commenting pointed out that Rachel always gestures in a way that hides the undersides of her arms from the camera. She does so here but she shows the undersides of her arms in spite of this. We provide a link to the body language of liars. When Rachel speaks of how "fortunate" she is compared to people who've been blown apart by a bomb in the July 7th carriage she avoids eye contact significantly and looks at the ground. Repeatedly. Even though she is clearly used to controlling her body language.

Keep sending us your observations. Next, we publish an article on Rachel's traumatic early childhood experience in which she was kidnapped by a hideous hoard of wild jungle beasts and fed on nothing but bread and water for six years.

41 comments:

Anonymous said...

Usually Rachel gestures in a way that carefully conceals the underside of her arms but here she shows them. She looks like a flower of the field. Is it a coincidence that at the time she shows the underside of her arms very overtly indeed, the camera pulls back? You can still see them in spite of this.

Anonymous said...

She shows the underside on two other occasions. She doesn't act honest. Body language. I am sick of her whole farce!

Anonymous said...

She is very smooth and practiced, much too smooth!
but her eyes are dishonest.

Anonymous said...

you can tell he hasn't forgiven those people. who would? its really phoney "my little girl" no wonder she thinks she can lie to anyone

never in that carriage said...

We like the part about the ancient monastic service that came to her mind as soon as the bomb went off.

Anonymous said...

It's difficult for you to confront the evidence while there is a handful of aggressive 7- 7 passengers who back Rachel's public inquiry campaign who come here and boot you in the head every time you demonstrate Rachel's farcical show. These people are not the majority so try and take no notice. If they were the majority they would swamp this blog. I think this is interesting. The first time she's had a proper challenge. And as for calling you cowards why don't those commenters say who they are? Perhaps they were never on the train at all. Anyone who rejects North without remaining anonymous these days is committing suicide.

Anonymous said...

talking about the language of liars do you see the way that Richard is scratching his ear when he says that he and Judy saw the article in the Sunday Times and just had to get Rachel in the studio. That must have been the morning Rachel's agent fell downstairs. Rachel knows it isn't true but watch her soak it all up!

never in that carriage said...

" Bt a dreadful coincidence Rachel was actually reading an article about her rape when the bomb went off." Richard omits to say that Rachel wrote the article that she was reading about her rape when the bomb went off. Maybe it was decided that it would all just look too incredible.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

So you are saying Rachel lied about the rape as well? And that her father is also lying about the rape?

Got any evidence?

Just want to make sure I have all the facts right about what this blog is claiming.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Naked emperor parade WELL DONE this blog

Anonymous said...

Like you can tell on youtube!!!!

Anonymous said...

These people are doing nothing but look at Rachel's claims. Rachel started off the debate about whether or not she was injured and went on to furbish everyone with the detail. Some people think she was not. Has Rachel had plastic surgery or cosmetic surgery of any kind to restore her formerly unrecognisable face? Can she prove it?

woody said...

Good question. Usually when people have cosmetic surgery to restore an unrecogniseable face they dont look so very like their parents; has the Canon had surgery too?/

never in that carriage said...

She claims she had no less than FORTY seperate injuries on her face and that it was "unrecognisable." You can't cover that sort of damage up with cake. She's got a mark above her lip but it looks like a defect mother nature left her.

never in that carriage said...

The scam girl's saying her father the Canon never saw her injured face: she says she was trying to protect him............................

Anonymous said...

It looks as if the curate never saw his daughter on either occasion.

woody said...

Speculation. Hard to believe that the poor dear would risk such embarrassment with the Archbishop ofCanterbury. He must have stayed away.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Who is this blog for then?

anyone can read a blog, it is published on the internet and anyone can read it.

Anonymous said...

Rachel's account on the Richard and Judy spot is just incredible, absolutely outrageous! Who does she think we are?!!

Anonymous said...

I think she's callous . When she says 'I didn't want my mother and father to have that memory of me burned into their consciousness' she's showing a self satisfied smile. She's pushed her credibility with them beyond all reasonable limits and she knows it. I feel very sorry for them indeed.

never in that carriage said...

Throughout the course of today we have been sent comments from posters pretending to be wounded victims who have spent the rest of lives covering their faces with make up. We accept all comments and publish all opinions but today we have had to issue a polite warning to those supporters of Rachel North who have been using this blog to send us survivor impersonations. Their comments will not be published in future.

This blog questions Rachel North's July 7th scam. We are not interested in other scams and fairy tales. If we had been we would have called this blog 'Rachel is a pork pie' or given it a similar title. Our job is to make sure that no one is being scammed about July the 7th.

Anonymous said...

Good idea

Anonymous said...

How appalling, to send comments pretending to be survivors! Has Rachel been sending any of these 'comments'?

never in that carriage said...

The few purported 'survivor' comments received today have been comments from Rachel's Internet friends pretending to be 'survivors who wear make up to cover their lifelong wounds'.

Anonymous said...

How do you know?

never in that carriage said...

We have been sent some useful advice which we will be heeding.

Anonymous said...

Something in her eyes says oh, what an idiot! To Judy while she is talking to her

blogger said...

It is very strange. I am upset by all of this. When you compare evidence it makes up a different picture. How could she have got away with this for so long? I feel angry;' and a fool. I am annoyed and angry with myself, I always had a niggling doubt at the back of my mind about just how anyone could just walk out of a bomb like that!

Anonymous said...

Coordinated BS of some kind. MI5 or BBC media?

Anonymous said...

BBC media? Channel 4 docs? Someone helped Rachel start this rubbish.

Anonymous said...

At 22.59 on 7th July 2005, Rachael posted:

'I became aware of a huge 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.'

Rachael goes on to say that she knew she needed to get it stitched.

Stiches almost always leave scars!

Anonymous said...

In the R&J interview Rachael has not gotten even closer to the alleged bomber as she claims, " ... the bomber was 7 or 8 feet behind me."

She also claims that after the rape attack, she had 40 separate injuries to her face, yet appears to display no sign of any damage.

I got kicked in the nose during a football match almost forty years ago and still have the stud mark to show for it ... despite the injury not needing any stitches!

Full credit for opening up this long needed examination of Miss North's role in the events of 7/7/05.

Anonymous said...

If Rachel is lying about what that seventeen year old did to her that makes her a sex offender. If it was consensual. Might that be why she makes such a story about J7? She was reading that article about being raped which she wrote when she got on the train. She needed a big story to cover her own tracks in respect of what she did.

Anonymous said...

She must have given that Court the performance of her life then

Anonymous said...

Anonymous wrote: 'She must have given that Court the performance of her life then.'

Rachel's track record would suggest that she is undoubtedly a 'performer' ... as further demonstrated by her Pole dancing antics as decscribed in this January 2006 Times article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article717126.ece

Her behaviour is symptomatic of someone who has low self-esteem. Creating an archetype 'victim' facilitates the need to be the centre of attention. Rachel's 'attack dog' style reaction towards anyone who has the audacity to question her version of 'truth' is symptomatic of someone who dare not allow their 'truth' to be subjected to deep scrutiny.

An examination of the inconsitencies in Ms North's account of her involvement in the events of July 7th, along with her rabid support of the official account, is long overdue.

Thank you

Anonymous said...

Rachel North clearly states that her father the Canon never saw her injured face, if it were ever so. He simply takes his devious daughter at her word.

She must be taking him for a plum pie.

Anonymous said...

When Rachel uses the word "fortunate" it narrowly replaces the words "pretty damn lucky". She catches herself and puts on the big act.

never in that carriage said...

Correction: the mark on her face is just studio lighting and sweat.