I see what you mean. But to clarify, there was no friend. It was a distant relative of Tim Walker's who lent them money.
The Walkers did claim the debt was from his business, which contradicts what the relative said, he said it was from his private account so the judge must have gone with that rather than the Walker's "evidence". (And knowledgeable people on these threads have said that no judge would not allow them to present the evidence, even if it was late in the day.)
It must be fairly easy to prove £100,000 going out of your personal bank account.
This bit's interesting:
The Observer says "During the case James filed a witness statement in which he told the court that “the purpose of the loan is clear: it was required to settle a criminal allegation made against Mrs Walker”.
I wonder if they had tried to argue that the loan was a business loan to them, otherwise why clarify what the loan was for. If it was a loan to their business (and if that business was a ltd company) they could have argued they didn't have personal liability.