Rachel Collins

' I have the absolute utmost respect for soap opera actors now. They work harder than any actor I know in any other medium. And they don't get very much approbation for it'.
Joan Collins.

Rachel North, about her book, 2007, just below. Italics and enlargements her own. We provide the link to her original post here.

" ''I couldn't stop reading because it's
brilliantly written and a gripping narrative.''
Bob Tyrer, Sunday Times
''a brilliant memoir about surviving 7/7''
Jon Ronson, author & broadcaster
''In the terror of July 7th Rachel North found her own capacity for courage and discovered that she had extraordinary gifts as a writer,
not the least of which is her powerful honesty''

Fergal Keane, BBC, author & broadcaster "

You can buy the book 'Out of the Tunnel' from Amazon. Every review left on Amazon is a five star. This has never happened before in the history of English literature. Rachel and her violent Internet henchmen intimidate and abuse people on the Internet and no one dares leave anything else. The comments box attached to this post is reserved for actual opinions on Rachel's book.

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.

Some Tavistock questions

Habib Hussain is held responsible for bombing the bus at Tavistock square. Along with his silent co defendants he has put up no form of defence for reasons apparent. More questions surround his bombing than the others. Mainly because he obviously changed his mind about bombing a train on the London Metro, offered his co ds an excuse by mobile and left the scene. Half an hour later a bomb went off at the back of a Tavistock Square bus.


The nature of the explosive found is highly volatile. It is easy to set if off by accident. We note that Hussain whose profile can be found on the J7 Truth Campaign website went to the top of a bus, and took a back seat. A very determined bomber would have taken a seat on the ground deck and stood in the middle, like Germaine Lindsay.

This bomber looks as if he changed his mind and tried to get out. He might have foolishly got on public transport and his bomb might have been detonated by unexpected factors. He might have suddenly changed his mind again and set it off. One thing for sure, that day he was a real fool.

Germaine's false assumption that a chemical bomb would 'blow the show' at the front carriage of his train ( causing a chain explosive reaction ) and Hussain's behaviour give the 'clean skin' appearance which MI5 gave the public before back pedalling.

We make the observation, we don't wish to theorise.

We appreciate that the effects of Hussain's bomb were limited, and that people at the front of the bus escaped. This was because the bomb was not in such a tightly confined and well sealed space. Accused Lindsay's bomb blasted the entire inside of carriage 1. away. We know that for sure.

We also point out that the metro tubes are not built by Mercedes Benz. Neither are the Double Decker buses. The bendy buses are. The buses might appear to be better made that the tube trains. We wonder why Rachel who has very probably observed the above points pays no attention to this, when it is quite clear that she has been praying for one of Mercedez cars for five years.

We will be looking at these questions. We will also be looking at the exact amount that Rachel has probably earned from selling her stories and her so called political opinions to the press. We pause for a commercial break, Rachel's favorite.



We have seen that anyone who disagrees with Rachel's version of events or objects to her terrible batterings, either or, is immediately labelled "poor muppet, (or patronising) muppet. Sheesh." We draw allusion to the much battered Kermit the Frog with whom Rachel ( Miss Piggy) appears to be extending the famous thwarted romance.

We note that Kermit bears some resemblance to Richard of Richard and Judy fame. We provide our readers with the link to our post which demonstrates Rachel's Richard and Judy scam.

We want to provide a link to a book which is written by the author of BBC Mastermind which we believe will help readers decide about Rachel "North". It is called 'Fakers, Forgers and Phoneys' and it brings the reality of these people home to the unsuspecting public. We find that Rachel and the different people mentioned within the book have very similar traits. The 'faker' parts are very interesting.
Fakers, Forgers & Phoneys is a masterful exploration of the shadowy world of deception and counterfeiting. The 16 case studies in this intriguing collection reveal:

• how a house-painter-cum-art-restorer fooled the art world and became a national TV celebrity in 1979;
• the identity of the person who fabricated the ‘missing link’ human skull which was discovered in a gravel pit at Piltdown in Essex in 1912;
• how a mystery man known by the unlikely name of George Psalmanazar fooled the London literary world in 1704 with his lurid accounts of cannibalism and polygamy in his native island of Formosa (Taiwan);
• how an obese cockney adventurer resident in Australia succeeded in passing himself off as a slim young English aristocrat who had disappeared more than ten years earlier in 1854 (‘The Tichborne Claimant’); and
• how a suave London conman inveigled a struggling artist to become involved in the greatest British art scam of the twentieth century.

Fakers, Forgers & Phoneys is the essential guide to the most ingenious art and literary forgeries, archaeological frauds, and imposters and hoaxers in the world.

We also provide a link to a Cyber Museum of famous scams.

Finsbury Park , our recent experiment.

We have checked an estimation of the carriage length. The carriages on the Piccadilly line are twice as long as the other carriages. This is causing a furore on these blogs because it highlights a particularly essential issue in Rachel North's evidence and proves that she must be inventing her tale. Rachel North states that she was right beside the driver and also that she was two metres ( seven feet) away from Germaine Lindsay who was at the centre of the bombed carriage. This is an impossibility in the first place. The much longer carriages prove that she is telling a constructed lie.

We believe that our critics were in part correct when advising us that we overestimated the length of the long Piccadilly carriages in terms of metres when reporting our experiment. We were not able to measure the length of the carriages during the course of our experiment. They may be deceptive in length but again we must advise that they are very long. Imagine an ordinary metro carriage, and double its length.

People have been pointing out to us that twenty five metres sounds much shorter than it actually measures.

For the sake of argument and to prove we are correct we have reduced out guesstimate of the length of the long Piccadilly line carriages to a very conservative 25 metres. This is for the calculation, which we print at the base of the page.

This is Finsbury Park. Change here, for the Victoria Line and National Rail Services. This is a Piccadilly Line train to Heathrow terminals 1, 2, 3 and 5.


Our experiment.

We spent Saturday investigating Rachel North's claim to have mounted the Piccadilly Line tube train carriage 1. which she claims to have mounted at Finsbury Park. Rachel claims that she mounted the train that was bombed by Germaine Lindsay on carriage 1. at Finsbury Park and remained on carriage 1. of the train. Carriage 1. was bombed by Germaine Lindsay between Kings Cross and Russel Square.

Her story: she bought a magazine at a little magazine stall and was engrossed in reading an article that she had written about a rape that she claims she was subjected to in the said article. She descended the steps, passed through the booths, passed through the corridor, descended and headed towards the platforms where the trains that head to King's Cross stop. There are two long platforms at Finsbury Park that receive trains headed towards Kings Cross. Platforms 3 and 4. Both these long platforms receive trains that are headed 'Southbound'. One platform takes the Piccadilly Line trains, which contain the very long carriages we earlier observed, about twenty five metres in length, and the other takes the Victoria Line trains, which contain the shorter carriages ( about half as long) that most people are used to taking.

The platforms run parallel and you can cross from one platform to the other via a small twenty metre long passage.

Rachel boarded the Piccadilly line tube on one of the trains that contains the very long carriages.

Rachel states that she waited for two trains to go past while she sat reading he article she'd written in a magazine about her rape claim. ( Which she broadcasts). So CCTV for July 7 will have picked her up for sure. She tells us that this is because the two trains that went past were full. If she saw that she will have had to have wandered up and down the station platform so we can conclude that she was about in the middle of the platform when the train turned up that was later boarded by Germaine Lindsay.

Rachel once stated that she 'usually gets the middle carriage' but on July 7 she changed her mind, because it was so crowded, and made her way up to carriage 1. By our observations, her 'middle carriage' will probably have been carriage 4. She states that on July 7th, she attempted to enter carriage 4. in the usual way, discovered it was too crowded, and made her way up the platform where she boarded carriage 1. Rachel does not say that she made any effort to enter any of the other carriages between 4 and 1, and we regard her statement as suspicious. ( Why would she run to carriage 1. ? ) If the middle carriages are too crowded you try the others, you don't suddenly break your routine and run to carriage 1. at the top of the train without thinking about trying any of the others.

There are four benches on the platform where Rachel stood. The second one from the top is near the centre of the platform. It is easily accessed and close beside the platform entrance.

The Piccadilly line tube trains contain seven long carriages about forty metres in length. Carriage 4. rests just in front of the bench at the middle of the platform.

During the course of our experiment we observed ten trains arrive. Each of these was a Piccadilly line Southbound and destined to pass through Kings Cross and Russel Square. For each train, we followed the movements that Rachel North describes in her published evidence ( blog and other media outlets) in order to test the veracity of her claims.

The trains stop very briefly. On some occasions, the driver almost wasn't interested in picking anyone up at all. You have have to run, and push your way onto the train carriages. (This is standard for every metro in every country.)

Each of us on the experiment walked to carriage 4, delayed a short while, the time it would take to try to make your way through commuters on a very busy platform and get on a train carriage, fight to get on, and give up. We then turned about, and walked up towards carriage 1. which was situated on the platform right at the top beside the tunnel opening.

We walked at a reasonable pace. Giving Rachel the benefit of the doubt, ( always a very difficult thing to do when conducting any experiment relating to her claims) we guesstimated that she might have pushed and fought her way through the busy rush hour platform that she describes at a fast rate in order to make her way up to carriage 1. We considered, then, that walking at a reasonable pace would reflect her July 7 circumstance, time-wise.

Seven times in ten, you get to the bottom end of carriage 2. ( eighty metres away from the top of carriage 1.) before you hear 'Stand clear, of the closing doors. 'Stand clear, of the closing doors'. 'bee-p bee-p bee-p bee-p bee-p.' and the doors close.

Try it. We are interested in people testing our experiments and our claims for themselves.

Seven times in ten, you do not get any nearer than the near end of carriage 2 before the doors close. It was very interesting to observe the difference between the platform reality and Rachel's much promoted story.

Once in ten there are unusual variables at work such as the train stopping longer for some test or other, or to accommodate other trains on the network. This is the exception. (On these occasions it is just possible to make it to carriage 1 if you run at a pace and don't try to enter the other carriages. But you have to go fast. Rachel does not indicate any occurrence such as a train being delayed. It is unlikely at rush hour).

Three times in ten you do not get anywhere near as far as carriage 2. before the doors close and the train is off.

We observed that rush hour makes no difference to the amount of time the trains stop at the station. This makes enough sense; there is a train network to run that can't depend on different commuters' timetables. This explains the frantic rush and crush whenever the trains come. (We also observed on a separate occasion that there are occasions early evening when the trains tend to stop for a little longer but this is irrelevant).

Rachel states that she boarded carriage 1 at rush hour in the morning. She states that the station was frantically busy with commuters to the point that carriage 4 couldn't accommodate her. She suggests that she tried carriage 4. then made her way up to carriage 1. as an exception. She doesn't suggest that the train stopped for any unusual length of time. She says that she was engrossed in reading a magazine article which she'd written about herself which we estimate would in fact have slowed her down considerably. (The magazine stand where she bought her own article is in the picture at the top of the page.)

From this experiment alone we conclude that it is highly improbable that Rachel mounted carriage 1 bombed by Germaine Lindsay in the manner she describes, at Finsbury Park.

A picture of Finsbury Park platform where Rachel North claims she mounted carriage 1. of the train bombed by Germaine Lindsay. Carriage 1. is always situated just before the tunnel entrance. There is a view here of the space taken by one and a half carriages out of the seven that make up the train. So Rachel as you can see will have had quite a walk in rush hour to get to the top of carriage 1. from carriage 4. in the space of less than one minute average- sometimes about thirty seconds. ( She claims that she entered carriage 1. via the door closest to the driver and then made her way to a space right beside the driver.)

It is interesting to note that Germaine Lindsay made his way to carriage 1. ( on another platform at a later point in this train's journey) directly. He wasted no time at all and went straight to the top carriage, by design. He entered the long carriage by the middle doors, and stayed put. We conclude that he must have entered the platform he used via an arch close by carriage 1.

We disagree with an earlier contributor who suggested that people could have made their way along the little ledges of the train in the wider part of the tunnel where the train apparently stopped. There are no little ledges attached to train carriages except where they are attached to the part beneath the sliding doors. Passengers who escaped from carriage 4. as reported by one passenger survivor and a barrister who was at the back of the train will have had to fumble their way along the track beside the train.

We see that Rachel is claiming that she usually gets on a train carriage at the middle of the carriage and stays there but that on July 7th she mounted a carriage and made her way to the top of the carriage she mounted which she claims was carriage 1. This is another unusual claim and we dispute the probability. (She probably regretted that claim because at a later point she changed her mind and claimed to be two metres away from the bomber Germaine Lindsay who was at the middle of the train). We suggest that people saw the fact that she was unharmed and unmarked and began to question whether she really was in that carriage and she felt that she had to fabricate a tale about the unusual chance effort she had made to make her way to the top of carriage 1. (which she hoped people would believe was enough distance from a bomb for her to be completely unaffected by it). Later, when her story about surviving a bomb unmarked had gained enough movement, she clearly changed her claim and said that she was two metres away from Lindsay when the bomb went off.

If the carriage is 25 metres long, then half the carriage is 12.5 metres, which is no less than 41 feet. Rachel, by her first published account, was 41 feet away from Lindsay when the bomb went off at the centre of the carriage. ( Right near the driver). She later states that she was a mere 7 feet away from Lindsay.

We believe that we have demonstrated our point and that the experiment was successful.

A short break

We will be away for a few days in order to conduct some experiments. Keep leaving your thoughts.

We wish to put forward no theory on the London bombings. The job of this separate blog is to investigate the integrity of a suspicious woman's claims.

We have now completed another interesting experiment and once again concluded that Rachel North was never on carriage 1. when it was bombed by Germaine Lindsay.

While conducting this experiment we received comments about people that Rachel has abused and attacked through her press contacts and then her blog, one of whom is a wounded survivor of July 7th. Apparently for daring to question her version of events and touching on the subject of her position as a survivor of carriage 1. We are interested in people who have been abused in the way described by the apparently oppressive and attention craving 'Rachel North'.

If you do not wish your name to be aired on this blog write and let us know and we will delete any temporary reference. If you do not wish your comment to be printed on the blog let us know.

As a precaution we have now deleted the reference to particular names in order to protect people from Rachel's Internet crowd and their abusive ways.

We would like to explain that we are neutral in this matter. We want to remain objective. The title of this blog asks a question. We believe that we the public have a duty to the people on the carriage who didn't make it, who were left behind in the rush to escape. We believe that it is these people and the injured who are owed most. We believe that no one should be making false claims and profits out of July 7th. We believe that evidence relating to July 7th should not be false or manipulated. We believe that Rachel is doing this, or we wouldn't have started this blog.

We are aware that there are people commenting with a wide variety of historical and political views and we do not interfere with this. Comment is free.

Passing through, or making their way through the tracks....

We are still very interested in the question of the Russel Square mystery. How did people ( passengers) cut across to Russel Square? Past the carriage, or through the carriage? There are just a few places in the tunnel where people could have passed through.

The barrister, Mr. Power, tells us that he went up the carriages through to carriage 1. He saw that everyone had smashed the windows of the train and left their belongings behind in a rush. How could he see that in a narrow tunnel if he stayed in the end carriage?

Send us your thoughts.

We received an interesting comment about the different ways in which survivors could have made their way past or through carriage 1. in order to escape to Russel Square. Think of disaster films that you know of. Is it realistic to assume that no one would have tried to make their way through or past the bombed carriage, and instead would have waited inside the other carriages in the train for half an hour in case help came? One possibility is that the tunnel was just wide enough for passengers to make their way along the little ledge of the train and grope their way along past the carriages. It is wide enough in places. In others it is wider, not in many, it is a narrow gauge tunnel. It is not realistic to assume that passengers from the other carriages would not have tried to make their way through the bombed carriage in the circumstances. It obviously provided a clear escape route. Would people have tried to make their way through and go after the driver or would they have just sat there for half an hour trapped like sardines in the other carriages? There is evidence that they did not just sit there. They are said to have left their belongings behind and smashed windows and gone through the emergency doors towards the front of the train. There is also a strong suggestion that they smashed doors and escaped into the tunnel, and could have passed through the tunnel that way. The idea that they fought their way through carriage 1. towards the driver's cab and the door at the front of his cab should not be treated as unheard of. We see that Rachel has written a post about the Titanic. The fight for the life boats on the Titanic is a good analogy. People will have tried any which way to escape, including going through carriage 1. It was passed down the train that it was possible to go through carriage 1. and follow the driver to Russel Square .

Here is a picture of the front of the driver's carriage. We were sent a comment by one of Rachel's supporters claiming to be a survivor of carriage 1. who said he knew that Rachel was on the bomber's carriage because she was able to tell him about a little ladder that was used to get out of the drivers carriage. Then there was a row in the comments box about how the ladder was used, and the same commenter said that because the tunnel was narrow, it was used to go out of the front of the driver's carriage and not the side. (In an attempt to contradict our early suggestion that passengers might have passed beside carriage 1. in order to get to Russel Square if the tunnel was wide enough). There is, obviously, a door at the front of the driver's carriage on the Piccadilly line trains. According to this picture.

We concede that a very little ladder could have been used to get out of the door onto the tracks. What we don't see is why this is thought to be an essential point that proves that Rachel was on carriage 1. Anyone could have known that. You just have to see the carriage driver's cab. The survivor who sent us this comment also told us that in the time he ( or she) was in carriage 1. he did not see or hear Rachel North and he did not see her on the tracks either which makes sense if she was following behind.

There is an interesting revelation from a survivor in the comments box at the end in which he reveals that the survivors of carriage 4 broke their way out of the carriage onto the train racks and escaped. We point out that if carriage 4 was able to do this then other carriages were too and there will have been nothing stopping survivors from the carriages behind carriage 1. making their way past carriage 1. at the front of the train. We remind our readers that there are emergency doors at the ends of all the carriages which passengers could have passed through on their way to carriage 4. could have passed through. (Some commenters are saying that this commenter is Rachel herself. We believe it to be Rachel or a survivor who Rachel has lead along).

We are also interested in the question of whether Rachel North is a covert or 'closet' conspiracy theorist, or what she terms as a 'conspiraloon.' Her blog is full of strange ideas about MI5 and what they are doing, and she makes some very peculiar claims.

We lifted this picture from Rachel's blog.

'Down to Margate?' or 'Rachel is cheating the July 7th victims?'

Is this the face of Mother Teresa?

We believe that in this picture Rachel reveals the contempt aversion and disgust that she feels towards others. We believe this includes almost everyone, because she seeks to use and deploy most people that she meets for her ego ends. These people include her husband the solicitor, and her father the vicar.

We have noticed that Rachel makes a big point of publishing her extravagant expenses and luxury holidays. She does this although she knows that people who survived horrible injuries in the London bombings have not been properly compensated and over a hundred have received nothing at all. Rachel communicates as a very scathing person who believes that other people's lives are worth very little and that life owes her a living. She is also a 'Daddy's girl' who appears to have been dragging her parents and her husband into her 'spin and rake it in' fantasies. She is a vicar's daughter from a working class background which she spurns. She struggles to be stylish upper class which compounds her much publicised "grief and sadness".

We provide a number of links for your attention. Rachel is advertising the expensive hotel that she is staying in this summer. She writes 'Madrid encore' as if to imply that she has stayed in the deluxe rooms before and they are a personal favourite but we think this is unlikely. She and the well known 'J', her husband, went to stay in a five star hotel in Amsterdam recently.On each occasion that she stays in an extremely expensive hotel, she prints pictures and the link.

She writes:

'Fabulous frocks are all very well, but weddings - and I have two this year to go to plus two hen weekends - are so flipping expensive. It's not just the frock, but the shoes, hat, bag, jewellery, flights/train tickets, hotel, present and all the rest of it. The average couple spends £1400 a year on attending weddings, apparently. Ouch.'

As one commenter pointed out, the average couple spends £3000.00 to 6000.00 on their own wedding if they can afford to get married.

There can be no doubt that Rachel and her husband are living a life of luxury while 7/7 victims suffer.

'This year we had several things to celebrate - nine years of being together, my birthday, J's promotion, and having been married for almost a year. So we stayed at the five-star Krasnapolsky in Dam Square (which has cheap deals on if you know where to look and which is famous for a sensational breakfast of everything from sausages, ham, cheese, fish, pastries, juice, champagne in the Winter Garden under a soaring glass and wrought-iron roof...)' she wrote. This particular hotel has an extravagant restaurant which we display.


We find it strange that Rachel cries rape so often on her blog and prints these hotel addresses on the same web site. Rachel North has written a book on the July 7th bombings called 'Out of The Tunnel' which she is seen selling on her blog. She refers to herself as a 'shameless publicity hound.' One commenter has asked us: 'Is she making £ for herself out of her 7/7 book sales?'

Rachel repeatedly asserts that she is donating the money gained from her book sales to charity. However, there is no charity advertised on her blog except one called Corda which she put up after her mother died. This charity has received no contributions whatsoever from herself and only a meagre £400.00 from her readers. Rachel never encourages charity on her blog. Corda never gets a mention.

We find all this concerning. On the third anniversary of the London bombings, we learn that one in ten wounded and damaged survivors who were on the trains ( probably an underestimation) are still waiting for full compensation.So are people who lost their loved ones on July 7th. Many more have claims that are still partly paid or 'in the pipeline'. We wonder whether Rachel's apparent lies and blatant contradictions and false claims ( demonstrated on this blog) could be influencing this situation, causing confusion and other problems at the criminal compensations offices, causing honest suffering people who survived July 7th unnecessary hardship. We believe that Rachel, via her husband who is a solicitor, has received significant compensation for injuries that she clearly, visibly, does not have.

We do not understand why Rachel is flaunting her yearned for lavish lifestyle in front of people she pretends she cares about. We believe that Rachel does not care about these people and that she is a scammer pretending to have been on the carriage that was bombed on July 7th 2005 by Germaine Lindsay.

Miracle, deceived, or Walter Mitty?

No one believes that George Roskilly is a walking miracle who escaped a bomb from three feet away on July 7th 2005. We are undecided about whether he is a bit of a Walter Mitty or whether he is completely deceived. There is some disagreement.

On Monday Channel 4 documentaries broadcast a programme 'The miracle of carriage 346' 'disclosing' that there is another survivor of July 7th who was a very short way away from Lindsay when he detonated his bomb. We provide the link to the documentary here. 'George' is claiming that he was three feet away from Lindsay when the bomb went off in carriage 1!

That's less than 1 metre.

Obviously, his outlandish story is interesting. But we shouldn't laugh insensitively. Is he Walter Mitty, or deceived? We need to be open minded about this question.

No one else who claims that they were in the carriage 1. train bombed on July the 7th claims that they escaped the 7/7 train without serious injury, apart from Rachel North, who is unmarked. On the contrary all the survivors of carriage 1. were severely wounded. As would be expected.

We learn that George was subjected to Rachel North's influence. She met him in or around early 2006.

We learn that George left the July 7th train without speaking with anyone, went to hospital alone, left alone, then went home. He refused to speak to anyone about the July 7th incident. He would not discuss it with his wife. He refused to visit a Doctor for many months. According to reports, he could not remember anything about July 7th until he heard his grandson crying. He 'began to remember' events a this point. According to Channel 4:

"The injuries he witnessed at Russell Square caused George to refuse serious medical attention as his physical wounds were only superficial. After a brief examination by a first aider, George left the scene and headed for home. He continued to refuse medical help despite his wife’s insistence and returned to work, travelling by tube, on the Tuesday following the bombings. It was only later that the sound of his grandson crying caused the memories of the 7th July to return. He broke down and sought counselling which he attended for six months. He still suffers from anxiety and survivor’s guilt brought on by triggers".

Poor George was subjected to some trauma on July 7th 2005. He was an old man somewhere on the train (probably not on carriage 1.) from another country. London is a hard city. He might have been very poor before he thought about claiming criminal compensation (and possibly insurance). He was traumatised, he lost his memory, and then he met Rachel North. She appears to have 'filled his traumatised mind with her ideas', or given him a smart idea.

He was introduced to Channel 4 by a mysterious person later.

We believe that it was cruel to tell George that he was three feet away from a chemical bomb on July 7th when he obviously was not. If he really did lose his memory.

We also believe that it is wrong to call George a 'miracle' without examining the facts. We don't believe that there is a God who would cause George and Rachel to experience miraculous escape at random and allow the other people on carriage 1. to be severely injured or die at the same time. We feel that Channel 4 has been cruel towards the injured and those who suffered loss on July 7th 2005.

Why is this man repeating Rachel's points of view and her purported experiences? Why has he been introduced to Channel 4 specifically?

Rachel is a media executive with an eye for an opportunity.

We accept that the report quoting the fire fighter's perspective talks about 'Bluewatch' who are stating that a small handful of people escaped carriage 1. with 'miraculously minor injuries.' In other words, they lost their limbs, but they were not killed. We agree that these people are 'miracles of carriage 1.' and we wish them the best. All reports from professionals at the scene support this interpretation.

There is no suggestion either on the Channel 4 report or on any of the others that anyone is claiming to have emerged from carriage 1. unharmed apart from Rachel, and George.

A handful of people emerged relatively unharmed at Russel Square. As compared to the passengers of carriage 1. We believe that these people came from the other train carriages. They are not claiming that they fabulously escaped from being two metres or three feet away from Lindsay when he set off his bomb. We provide a link to another passenger's story, from a lady who was ten to twelve feet away from Lindsay. As recorded by the paramedics. Observe the very marked difference between her story about her wounds and her suffering and George's and Rachel's stories.

Lindsay's situation

A correction: one of our contributors stated that Lindsay had to be in the "middle of the train". He meant "middle of the carriage." We believe that suicide bomber Lindsay obviously had to be in the middle there because this is where the major damage is reported to have been done and the driver's cab was not badly affected by the blast. We have corrected our contributor and provide the link here to the post in the comments box that we corrected. Probably nobody mistook our meaning. This point is important because Rachel North states that she was at the top of the long train carriage near the driver and also that she was two metres away from Lindsay. These blatant inaccuracies in her continuing story as well as other serious faults in her scam lead us to conclude that Rachel North was never in the carriage bombed on July 7.

Here's what Rachel wrote on
Monday, September 12, 2005

Two months on. Drinks, a party and the odd jitter

I started to get the jitters the day before the 7th of September. I got on the tube at Finsbury Park, late again, and it was crowded again. More and more people crushed on. Like they did before. And I looked about me in carriage one as we neared Kings Cross and I realised that I was in the 'wrong' part of the carriage. Not near the front of carriage one, where I'd survived, and where I'd travelled ever since, but in the middle. Where the bomb had been. And then young men got on. With rucksacks. And my heartbeat sped up and I swayed, and I began to run with sweat. I could smell my own fear. And as more and more people pushed on at Kings Cross, I looked at my watch. 8.49am. I forced my way off the carriage and stumbled up to the mainline station. Lit a cigarette with shaky hands, got in the queue for a cab, mouth dry.

The next day, and the next, I took taxis. On the 7th I was tearful, but work was so busy there was simply no time to worry about it. And on the 8th, Kings Cross United met up for a drink, and the shared camaraderie of fellow train-passengers - and too much wine again - meant that the fear receded to manageable proportions and by the Friday, I was back on track.More or less.

By the end of the week, I was tired out but okay. Saturday I had a massage, got my nails done, went shopping for birthday presents for my friends. Saturday night we went ot a bar and danced and anced, then went back to Jane's house to continue celebrating her 40th. The party went on until ten in the morning. Friends I have known for almost a decade were there. My sister was there. We were wild. Sometimes you need to celebrate life very loudly, with music and dancing and wine.

Even if you have to spend Sunday in bed recovering all day. "

She says on Monday September the 12th 2005 that she had been right near the driver on July 7 2005 and that Germaine had been in the centre of the carriage: talking to Richard and Judy mid 2007 she says that Germaine Lindsay was just two metres behind her when he bombed the carriage. If she was right near the driver on the 7th July 2005 then she was around at the very least,12.5 metres from Germaine Lindsay who was obviously at the centre of the very long carriage. How could she just forget about a 'little thing like that', the bomber's situation in the carriage?

We believe that she was not on the bombed carriage on July 7 2005.

Not posted on July 7 2008 either:

Here we provide a link to a film provided by the United States army of a suicide bomber's bomb which he blew up at gates which soldiers were about to " roll right into." The bomb is a suicide bomber's chemical bomb and one which he will have been carrying. The open air video gives a display of how powerful the bombs can be on people nearby when there is no wall or sealed metal screen to contain the blast. It is a great deal for the troops to cope with and they stay two hundred metres away in armoured tanks. But it is not too much for Rachel North, who continues to state that she was two metres away from Germaine Lindsay when he blew up the Piccadilly carriage on the 7th July 2005.

The amount of smoke in the film resulted from petrol ignited in tanks inside the car that the bomber hit with his bomb and it will depend on the composition of the bomb. Bombs are often intended to start a chain destruction reaction and this suicide bomber seems to have been set off before the appointed time, which saved the troops. Fallujah is making continuous developments in respect of weapon content.

From our submitter: "We were about to roll out the gate of Abu Ghraib prison at the front end of a convoy when a suicide car bomber blew up his car right outside the gate on 4 April 2005. We drove through the wreckage a couple of hours later. Crew was SSG Scott Swindle, US Army; SPC Jonathan Flores, US Army; and Senior Airman Don Griffin, USAF."

Submitted By: SG Scott Swindle, US Army; SPC Jonathan Flores, US Army; and Senior Airman Don Griffin, USAF.

Either Lindsay detonated a bottle of pop soda, as one commenter suggests, or Rachel North was never in that carriage on 7/7 2005.

We believe that Rachel's conduct is an atrocious insult to British and US troops and the Iraq war victims.

Is this what Rachel wore on July 7 2005?

July 7 remembered

On this anniversary we pause to remember those wounded and killed in the terrible bomb blasts of July 7th 2005. 7/7 2005 was a dreadful day for London.

We hope that the living victims of the London bombings will find happiness in the future and that they, most of all, will be free from scammers and people who are trying to take advantage of July 7 2005.

An experiment conducted.

Two of our contributors have conducted an experiment. We conferred with them by mobile throughout except while they were on tube trains.

We have made a number of discoveries.

During the course of this experiment condcuted yesterday our contributors boarded the Piccadilly line tube and other tubes a total of eleven times, to establish facts.

A timer was used.

We find that most of the tunnel between Kings Cross and Russel Square is narrow. There are five short breaks where the tunnel is wide enough to for people to pass through the tunnel past a whole train, or exit down a ladder from a train. These short breaks occur around the central point of the tunnel to the best of our understanding.

We find that the train carriages on the Piccadilly lines are significantly longer and larger than the tube trains on the Circle or Victoria lines. They are twice as long. There is ample room to move about at most times and some room at rush hour. (There is no guarantee that these trains were around in 2005. We have not looked at this point yet.)

We observed and tested the emergency doors at each end of the carriages. All of the doors are easily opened and contain a long window that is easily smashed. Both acts permit the passenger to pass through to the next carriage with ease. It is not necessary to smash the door windows in order to use the emergency doors. They are very simple to use. They open as easily as a toilet or buffet door in an overground train.


We conclude that:

Rachel will not have had time while the train was resting at Finsbury Park to try and mount the middle carriage, give up, then try the other carriages and then end up mounting carrige 1. For the Piccadilly line tube train carriages to have been full to bursting to the point that Rachel North found that it was impossible to squeeze onto the middle train carriage or even any other train carriage except carriage 1, the station at Finsbury Park must have been very full. A great crowd of commuters. In our opinion such a huge gathering will have prevented Rachel from concluding that there was no room on the middle tube carriage before making her way up to carriage 1 while the train was resting at the station. Doing so would have taken her around ten minutes in the crowd.

It is possible that the train stopped at a narrow juncture because most of the tunnel is narrow. Some of it is not. We estimate that the accused terrorist Lindsay would probably (possibly) have calculated on a narrow juncture before setting off his bomb.

The tunnel walls are visible at all times.

We believe that after the bomb went off and the train ground to a halt, that it is very probable that passengers in the carriages behind carriage 1. opened the emergency doors at the end of their carriages and tried to make their way through the other carriages towards carriage 1. Their carriage doors were not bombed and they will have achieved this with ease.

We estimate that if the windows of the carriages were smashed that the train was either at one of the brief wider junctures, so that passengers thought that they could get out, or windows were smashed for ventilation, or smashed in panic. Panic and breaking out is the least likely explanation if the part of the tunnel was narrow. Ventilation is a less likely explanation for smashed windows nearer the back.

There can be no doubt that many passengers made their way to the top of the train and passed through carriage 1, the bombed carriage, then made their way to Russel Square. We refer to the barrister who is witness to this and repeat the quote from our previous posting:

" But I survived, as did everyone else, and finally, after about thirty minutes or so, people started to leave the carriage, and to their credit, in a very controlled manner. But as I exited, I saw people’s belongings scattered all over the place. People were physically injured, and the carriage windows were all smashed. "

Angelo exited the train and saw that people from the carriages all the way up to carriage 1. had been smashing their way out and leaving their belongings in their rush to escape. He is observing this on his way up towards the bombed carriage, carriage 1. It is unclear whether he walked up through the train towards carriage 1. or whether he walked along the tracks.
He says:

"ANGELO POWER: The others I saw, physical injuries, some had marks to the face. The carriage windows had punctured their skin. Others were physically lying on the floor, because they basically suffered smoke inhalation. Others in the main carriage, as I understand, are severely injured, if not dead. So, but at the end of the day, I honestly thought I was going to die. I’m just grateful to be alive."

We conclude that it is likely that passengers from carriages behind carriage 1 made their way up the train like Angelo Power and that some of them passed through carriage 1 and the surrounding area. We believe that many understandably did this including Rachel North.

We do not know why the barrister waited before moving off himself. He says he did. He was at the back of the train which will have made it slow for him. He knows about the law and police practice and may have been waiting for police to come first. He might have thought that it was his job to stay and calm people.

Angelo Power who said he was sitting at the back of the train when the bomb went off would seem to have seen the bombed carriage at the front of the train, or a carriage very near it. He says:

The others I saw, physical injuries, some had marks to the face. The carriage windows had punctured their skin. Others were physically lying on the floor, because they basically suffered smoke inhalation.

There is a lot that has not yet been explained to the public.

We find it very sad that so many people left the suffering in carriage 1 where they were, on their own.

A reader has just sent us a link showing that the long large tube train carriages were in use in 2001 on the Piccaddily line. From then on, presumably. We provide the link which has been sent us.

This is a picture showing half the length of the long tube carriages on the Piccadilly line. Rachel could have said that she was right at one end, as far away from the bomber Lindsay as possible, and we might have believed her. But she continues to state that he was "seven or eight feet behind her " when he detonated the bomb which everyone knows smashed the whole of carriage 1. apart causing terrible injury and death the whole length of the carriage. "Seven feet", that's 2.13 metres. We provide the metric calculation via this link.

Were any pictures of the detonated Piccadilly line train carriage ever shown to the public? If not, why not?

The Russell Square mystery

This is Russell Square station from which Rachel North emerged on the day of the London bombings July 7th 2005. Many people came out of this station ( where reporters were soon waiting) and still it is being said that only passengers who emerged from carriage 1. the bombed carriage emerged from this station. All the others went to Kings Cross, we are told. Everyone from the carriages behind the bombed carriage. Rachel North was the first person to give this story to the press. We ask how is it possible that so many bombed carriage passengers could have emerged from Russell Square? We suggest that many other passengers emerged from this station. We believe that those in the bombed carriage when the bomb went off suffered extremely serious injury and were not able to rush to escape.

We believe that other passengers from other parts of the train cut past or through carriage 1. while they were in the tunnel and made their way up to Russell Square. We do not believe that anyone in the bombed carriage survived the bomb blast without injury. We do not believe that no one broke out of other carriages. Evidence suggests that they did in droves and this is understandable. Another example of a person emerging without injury at Russell Square is Angelo Power, a lawyer from central London. He famously said 'We were like sardines in there, just waiting to die.' Obviously, you and other passengers from your carriage are not like "sardines" once a bomb has gone off, because everything is blasted away. If you chance to survive you will be one of a few left and there will be lots of space in the carriage. It is the passengers from the other carriages behind carriage 1. who will have still been squashed together like sardines and unable to get out because of the jammed doors. Power was in one of the carriages behind carriage 1. according to this he was in the carriage nearest the back. Power was not injured either. His picture shows a man who looks as if he has survived a long arduous struggle but not an injury. Like Rachel's case. He also says:

"We were like sardines in there, just waiting to die," said Angelino Power, 43, a barrister on his way to a court hearing. He was catapulted out of his seat as the bomb exploded. "

If he was catapulted out of his seat in the back carriage which he has the honesty to report that he was in, can we really believe that Rachel North survived the blast in the bombed carriage without a scratch? Mr. Power wouldn't seem to believe it.

'Trapped like sardines''.

"Angelo Power, a barrister emerging from the station, said a loud explosion rocked his train as it left King’s Cross.
There were flashes of light, people were screaming and smoke began to billow into the carriage, stuck in one of the Underground’s narrow and barely lit tunnels.
There was mayhem as 20 to 30 minutes passed before police reached the train to take survivors to safety. Women passed out and agitation turned to hysteria as people smashed the glass windows to escape billowing smoke but feared jumping out on to what they thought could be live electric lines.
“We were trapped like sardines waiting to die,” Power said. "

We believe that many of these survivors from other carriages went down the tracks towards Russel Square and came out from there. They cut past carriage 1. or they cut through it. Rachel North was one of these passengers. We believe that this stands to reason. The train was exactly half way through its journey between Kings Cross and Russel Square when the bomb went off.

We can see that people at the back and in other carriages noticed that there was some smoke seeping under the doors but there will be smoke from the engines when they have undergone damage. This smoke will seep under the base of the train. Not from the chemical bomb in carriage 1. which does not produce smoke or make a loud noise..

Angelo Power gives a much fuller statement on this link which we provide.

"ANGELO POWER: People started to scream because there was a burning smell, and everyone, to cut a long story short, thought they were going to die. People started saying prayers, praying to God, panicking, breaking the carriage windows with their bare hands, anything to get oxygen into the carriage, because the more people tried, the more distressed they became, women passing out. People started getting very agitated. There was no communication from any drivers.
Everyone was in pitch black, then the emergency lights came on. And more and more smoke started coming into the carriage. And we were there for something like twenty to thirty minutes, during which the smoke intensified, the screaming intensified, the hysteria—and that’s what it was—became almost to a state of pandemonium. Then eventually somebody said that someone at the back of the carriage, because I was on the second to the back carriage, had managed to force the door open. But they wouldn’t get out, because they thought they were going to be electrocuted by the live train lines. Then smoke was coming down the tunnels, so nobody would go out that exit, no one would go out the other exit, because as I understand it, there was a bomb in the middle of the carriage. So we were all trapped like sardines waiting to die, and I honestly thought my time was up.
But I survived, as did everyone else, and finally, after about thirty minutes or so, people started to leave the carriage, and to their credit, in a very controlled manner. But as I exited, I saw people’s belongings scattered all over the place. People were physically injured, and the carriage windows were all smashed. "

Angelo exited the train and saw that people from the carriages all the way up to carriage 1. had been smashing their way out and leaving their belongings in their rush to escape. He is observing this on his way up towards the bombed carriage, carriage 1. It is unclear whether he walked up through the train towards carriage 1. or whether he walked along the tracks.

He says:

"ANGELO POWER: The others I saw, physical injuries, some had marks to the face. The carriage windows had punctured their skin. Others were physically lying on the floor, because they basically suffered smoke inhalation. Others in the main carriage, as I understand, are severely injured, if not dead. So, but at the end of the day, I honestly thought I was going to die. I’m just grateful to be alive."

Angelo Power's account could confirm our suggestion that there was room enough between the train and the wall of the tunnel for the survivors to walk along the length of the train and cut past carriage 1. and make their way to Russell Square. If there was room for the survivors from carriage 2. to the back carriage to get out of their carriages and walk back to Kings Cross station then there was room between carriage 1. and the wall of the tunnel for people to pass by carriage 1. and walk to Russell Square. Lots of people probably made their way up to carriage 1. from inside the train and tried to pass through that carriage in order to get out. It is not reasonable to assume that in what has been described by Mr. Power as 'pandemonium' that no one tried it. Mr. Power's account suggests that many did.

We can see that a lot of problems have arisen from the press choosing to listen to only a very small selection of witnesses, one of whom "Rachel North" may be enjoying a profitable scam.

Important: Rachel stated that she waited in the front carriage 1. for half an hour holding hands and being with with other passengers before help came. One passenger from carriage 1. did not see her or hear her there, he says. He sent us a comment. But it is the other carriages that contained witnesses who speak about waiting for this time before help came. Should it be concluded that in carriage 1. where the passengers had easy access to the driver that he made the ones who could move wait for twenty minutes before helping them out down a ladder? This is what Rachel has suggested. She said they were in carriage 1. for half an hour before the driver let them out. We think he must have let out those who could possibly move straight away.

What else would he have been doing.... sitting there having his lunch for all that time?

We think Rachel North should explain herself. We believe that she was never on carriage 1. when the bomb went off and that she was on one of the other carriages. The barrister says that all the people on carriage 1. were severely injured or dead. Rachel has not got a mark on her.

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.

Rachel's apparent lies

We are interested in the amount of lies that Rachel North has been telling in the newspapers and on the T.V. If you have seen anything suspicious send a comment to this blog. We are going to give people a few days to do their research and get information to us.

We have received a message from someone ( which we have printed in the comments box attached to the post below) who says he knows that Rachel was in carriage 1. because points she made about her experience when she met him, tally with his own story. He says that he is a survivor of carriage 1. and this seems to be true. We believe that this poor man ( or woman) has been deceived by Rachel North. The points this person makes are: Rachel says she knew the driver's accent.... which was probably a London accent....and anyone could have heard it or worked that out...she was able to say that a ladder was used to get down to the tracks onto carriage 1., and she knew about the fact that people were using their mobile phones on the way out to Russel Square. We are glad he (she) sent this comment in because it shows that in all the time he was in the bombed carriage and then getting out of the bombed carriage and making his way to Russel Square he did not see or hear Rachel North. He could have missed her on the tracks if she was far behind him but we do not see how he could have missed her in the carriage if they were both there for half an hour, which is what Rachel says.

This person suggests that Rachel must have been on the bombed carriage because she came out at Russel Square Station. He says that everyone who was not in the bombed carriage went to Kings Cross and everyone in the bombed carriage went to Russel Square but this would seem to be a myth that has sprung up. We think that lots of people who were not on the bombed train carriage made it to Russel Square Station rather than Kings Cross which is understandable. People naturally will have tried to go after the driver who was leading the way. Obviously. We would have. Especially people from carriages 2 & 3.

This picture shows the ladders used to evacuate the trains. (Obviously, it would not be possible to escape such a bomb blast unharmed). This picture is Edgware road and it is an example of the trains and the ladders used to evacuate the trains. A very sad and upsetting picture to all.

Correction: the following paragraphs on this post ( Mon 30th June 2008) were written at the outset of this blog. We have revised this view after investigating the trains and the tunnel.

We suggest that ladders were used all the way along the train carriages. Just because people were not in a bombed carriage it does not mean that they would have been expected to jump onto the tracks, obviously. Everyone will have used ladders. Especially to get down from the bombed carriage onto the track. (We have been told that carriages do not have ladders, but the drivers do. The survivors say that they used ladders to escape.)

It is significant that ladders were used to evacuate the bombed carriage, as this shows that the train tunnel space between the side of the train and the tunnel was wide enough for people who were in the carriages behind carriage 1 to pass through the space between the train and the wall of the tunnel and go to Russel Square . Along with survivors of carriage 1. of which there were of course very few ( if any? almost all people in carriage 1. were very severely injured or had died.) We believe that people in other carriages down the train behind the bombed carriage tried to hear the driver as he was telling survivors who could hear him, to go to Russel Square, ( which was probably all about him getting the trains stopped from coming towards his train) and then the survivors from the other carriages went down onto the track and then went past the bombed carriage and went to Russel Square behind the driver. Other people from the other end of the train nearest to Kings Cross went to Kings Cross.

We believe that Rachel North did this. She understandably left carriage 2. or 3. and cut across the space in the tunnel beside carriage 1. and went to Russel Square.

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.......

A web of lies

Is this the face of an honest woman?

Rachel North who runs a blog called Rachel From North London was probably never on the carriage bombed on July 7th 2005. This blog will examine her web of lies...... ever since July the 7th 2005 Rachel North has been making a lot of statements about July 7th. She calls the bombed train "My train." But was she in the bombed carriage?

Is she a scammer?

Is there anyone who can back up her claims? There is never anything from witnesses to support her statements.

We would like to know....

Why does she stick so rigidly to the official version?

Why has she never produced her own detailed account of events in the carriage?

Why is she so fit and well when no one else is?

Is it possible for a group of people to have protected her from the bomb blast, as she claims? Why was no one and nothing else protected from the bomb blast if so?

How does she have no difficulty talking and talking about the subject?

Why does she make a living out of the bomb blast?

Why are her feelings so different from the other survivors feelings?

Why does she let the press take advantage of her position?

Have a look at this fire fighter's description of the scene provided by this link.

How is it possible to escape that blast without being affected? But, Rachel North says she did. She says she was in the carriage where the bomb was detonated at Kings Cross station and she was never hurt at all. Here is her description of the bomb scene. Very suspicious!

" We were okay."

She also wrote " We tried to keep each other calm, I remember saying: "If anyone's boss gives them grief for being late, we know what to say to them, eh, girls?"People laughed and we kept saying, "not long, it's the long walk to freedom, nearly there".

Is this the reaction of a woman who has experienced the bomb carriage described by the fire fighters?

Rachel's descriptions of what she experienced in her first account which she printed on her blog... sound like the experiences of people from numerous carriages along who were not directly affected by the bomb blast. This is always the case when she is talking about small effects. When she is talking later on about shock and other experiences her stories are fantastical.

Why is she jumpy about the CCTV question?

Look at how her story of her "eye witness account" changes when she is speaking on a platform, provided by this link. She is coming out with very strange views which deeply offend many survivors. Now, on this link, you can see she is saying that instead of leaving the train in a rush directed by the driver, everyone in the bombed carriage stood and held hands in the dark. ( Who is "everyone"?) This contradicts nearly all the other evidence.

Look at how her account has changes. Here is a quote ( 18 June 2007) from someone who has been watching Rachel's statements. He was watching a television interview with Rachel.

"Jon then talks to Rachel North. Rachel recounts of her experience in the bomb train (Piccadilly line) which she boarded at Finsbury park. Rachel says "I felt this huge {pause} POWER smashing me to the floor."

Ooooh Rachel that was close. Were the words 'heat blast' or 'fireball' on the tip of your tongue then? Rachel, do be careful. ..... "

But wait, what’s this? Rachel says "The air was thick with smoke" Hummm. Interesting. SMOKE. Something's burning right? What causes smoke? Heat or fire, for example incendiaries - incendiary explosives. Why am I talking about fireballs, smoke and incendiaries? Well, because TATP, the supposed explosive used, doesn't give off flames or significant heat when it explodes. Oh dear Rachel.... I'm not saying your lying......"

Rachel North is now, these days, saying that she suffered a loss of hearing after the bombing. TATP, the chemical used to explode the carriage of the train does not make a huge noise, its often described as 'silent but deadly.' We can provide a TATP description via this link. Also, a quote from this link provided by the MOD..

"The explosion of TATP is similar to the decomposition of azide, for example, which produces nitrogen gas but little heat, is used to fill airbags for cars. TATP is the most extreme example currently known, but it may be possible to design molecules that behave as an even more powerful explosive."

Fire fighters were automatically sent to the bomb scene. Their description of the bomb scene appears accurate and ties in with the known effects of a chemical bomb.

On Rachel's first account, which emerged on her blog before TATP was discovered to be the source of the bomb fuel she wrote:

"Normally I board half way up the train, but the train was so full, I walked up to the front of the train.
I was in the first carriage, behind the driver's carriage, standing by the doors - it was absolutely packed.
Even more people got on at Kings Cross. It felt like the most crowded train ever. Then, as we left Kings Cross, at about 8.50am, there was an almighty bang.
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.
A terrible screaming followed the initial silence."

We notice that the fire fighter, Mr Roche, is also supposed to have talked about smoke but this might just be journalism embellishment. Mr Roche did not write the account in the Guardian himself. The journalism embellishment might have been inspired by Rachel. Rachel North is a media and advertising executive with an eye for an opportunity.

It is always possible that she was never on the train at all. It is more likely that she was on another carriage that was not badly affected by the bomb.

We want to know: how is it possible to "hold hands in the dark" with other people ( who don't seem to exist) while a huge surge of "power" smashes you to the floor? How is it possible to be smashed to the floor by a chemical bomb and emerge fit and well...chatting about what to say to your boss on the same morning?

Looking at Rachel's first account again.

"I was on a crowded train to work. It was 8.40am when I boarded the rammed Piccadilly line train at Finsbury Park.
Normally I board half way up the train, but the train was so full, I walked up to the front of the train.
I was in the first carriage, behind the driver's carriage, standing by the doors - it was absolutely packed."

Thats extraordinary isnt it. Is it possible?

She boards half way up the train, usually. But on this day she decided to go to the front of the train to the carriage that would end up being bombed. She says the middle carriage was packed, so she will have had to have pushed her way through a large crowd with determination to get to this carriage at the front. You can understand Lindsays motive for going straight to the top of the platform to board the front carriage since his idea was to bomb the driver, and bring the whole thing down 9/11 style. But Rachel? She went from the middle of the platform to the top she says. Pushing your way through a crowd like the one she describes takes five minutes at least. There are always seven long carriages on a tube train at least. There usually isnt any time, you have to wait for the next train, which would have been the logical thing to do. The middle carriage was packed, so she didnt get on it. The front carriage was packed, so she did? After making her way through this very large crowd in two minutes. No mention of her trying any of the train carriages in between the middle and the top ones.

There should be CCTV from Finsbury Park tube station it does not concern the bombers.

We think Rachel North should explain herself.