Alleged discrepancies in July 7 witness testimony

[Rachel]

I have answered your point about Richmal who is in every single report that I have ever read is described as having psychological problems. That is NOT ''smearing'' her!


Try looking at the reports that exist. Guardian, Telegraph, NZ Herald and a feature. All written by journalists who are trained and who check facts and can do research. Now some people here may have decided she was smeared but until they produce evidence to show that she did not have psychological problems as reported, then what is the problem with me referring to the numerous reports that report that she had psychological problems?

The Daniel matter is closed: he has never met me, and has no right or reason to publish a book inferring he has spent time with me or been invited into my house or knows anything about me or my husband.

As to what you do:

I can't stop you or other people here picking over people's evidence on boards in a frankly morbid way, no, but I can point out when specific libel and lies and personal attacks ( such as 'North's book is fiction'/'bus driver is a criminal & possibly a murderer') regularly appear on this board, with reference to highly traumatic events that involve real people's lives and deaths.


I cannot see any reason why I or anyone else directly involved would want to get involved here with you or your campaign or your board because of the way you treat the people and the events involved.

And if you can't see or understand that, then you need to work on your human empathy a little bit more

[conspiracy analyst]

[karlos]

[Rachel]

What qualifies me to point out specific libel or lies is that on several occasions, in fact many occasions, people on this board have lied and libelled, threatened and bullied me and others in a way that I find disturbing, especially considering that none of you have any link to the events or any claim to ''investigate'' them whatsoever.

That's what honest, normal people do when they see sick lies and libel - speak out in protest. I will not pretend I do not find the content of some of this board deeply disturbing. The obsession with true crime, the obsessive attempts to track down people who were hurt and traumatised, the arrogance, the paranoia, the personal attacks on those who do not buy the conspiracy theories, the overwhelming lack of empathy is genuinely disturbing, knowing what I know about profiling after what happened to me.

And as for your last little threat Karlos

[karlos]

It is a shame that despite all your dealings with the boys in blue you have acquired very little grasp of the law.
If you are not willing to debate your publication on this forum, would you be willing to debate it at a public meeting or a lecture hall?
Your readers have genuine questions which only you as the author can answer. Dont forget everyone on this board wants an inquiry and an investigation. You should be encouraging us and sharing research with us.

Moving on to libel. As you know very few internet libel cases have ever made it to court and only a handful resulted in a damages award or contribution to costs.

For you to accuse somebody of libel you have to be named which nobody has done and then you have to be described in terms or using phrases which are rude, profane, hurtful or slanderous. None of which has every happened. Basically somebody has to write something like:
John Smith of 59 Acacia Avenue, Camden, is an adulterer and a kiddie fiddler which is libel. In your case nobody has gone remotely close to libel.
Asking the author of a book a question about the contents of said book is not libel. So please stop threatening legal action.

I suppose asking you to autograph your book like any other author does, will also be called libel?

ps: have you watched the documentary 7/7 the Ripple Effect as posted on this forum?

[ian neal]

Users here amongst other things have alleged that Rachel's book is (in parts) a work of fiction. Presuming Rachel's account is wholly truthful, I would say such accusations do libel and defame her, which is why I decided to edit this thread previously.

Also on this thread (as well as some unnecessary delving into Rachel's personal life) you, Karlos, thought it appropriate to speculate (and that is all it was: speculation, with no supporting evidence) on the faith and background of Rachel's husband as if this was relevant.

Given this, I have every sympathy for Rachel and fully understand why she doesn't feel inclined to answer questions here.

If you track back on threads here you will see that the majority of people have engaged politely and respectfully with rachel, but there have been those such as yourself Karlos and before you, Ally, who have not and these have completely dominated exchanges. Sure I have some real problems with some of what Rachel has written particularly in reference to 9/11, but please try and learn from the past. I don't want to have to edit the thread again only to have the same problem recur.

[karlos]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Into-Darkness-7-Peter-Zimonjic/dp/0099506068/r ef=sr_1_5/026-4930383-7944434?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182470941&sr=1-5

anyone read this?

[Prole]

[astro3]

Rachel asks,

[karlos]

astro - you are doing a good thing with these witnesses.
I dont think Mr Spellman's account does exonerate Rachel.
After all as he said she has been talking to him for over two years and he was very keen to appear to back her story.

The LU report as previously posted up by Numeral clearly states that the second through train after the line reopened was the bombed one. Rachel clearly states she got on the third train.
Spellman was waiting at Arnos Grove which confirmed the station closures down the line.
Rachel makes no mention of closures.

[numeral]

[astro3]

I contacted Mandy Yu in facebook, she lives in London. As reported on BBC News 19.7.05 she was at the front of the 2nd coach of the doomed Picadilly line train.
She said: