What's telling is the difference not just in Ros Hemmings' and Raynor Winn's accounts of events, but in the way they tell them. Ros Hemmings explicitly accuses Winn of stealing money. She gives figures. She describes discovering the theft after working through the books with her husband. She specifically mentions Winn's claim that she had to sell her mother's wedding dress. In short, the account she gave the journalist is detailed and relevant.
Then look at Winn's version of events. She says "mistakes were being made by the company", and expresses regret for any mistakes she herself made. But she gives absolutely no indication of what these mistakes were. She says it was a "pressured time", but doesn't explain the relevance - does she mean she was overworked, and therefore made mistakes? Or does she mean she was desperate for money and therefore stole?
She then says Martin Hemmings reported her to the police for taking money from the company. She says she reached a settlement with him because she "did not have the evidence required to support what happened". But she doesn't say what happened, or why she couldn't provide evidence of it. It's all so vague.
Surely, if you'd been falsely (and publicly) accused of embezzling £64K, you'd explicitly deny it? You wouldn't dance around it the way Winn does.