This suggests to me that they were indeed financially clueless. If anything it plays in to the storyline that rather being a couple of Machiavellian arch manipulators the truth about the Walkers is rather more prosaic.
- was SW a rather inept bookkeeper who filched money over the years and was pretty clueless about covering her tracks to the extent that she forged a cheque for £600 which resulted in the Hemmings' employees not getting paid? Was she a kleptomaniac who had no real idea of the cumulative damage she was causing to the Hemmings and their business ?
- Was the investment in the property business also fairly clueless with little understanding of the risks involved, the liquidity of the investment and the inability to demand immediate repayment (that's not the way equity investments work in private companies)
- Were SW and TW equally clueless when they embarked on the SWCP, with little idea of the physical challenge involved let alone what to do with a poo?
- Was remortgaging their Welsh farm (forever home) to buy a run down bramble infested property in deepest France, also financially clueless?
- Was SW equally clueless when she decided to submit her first MS of TSP to publishers on her daughter's suggestion, not realising the risks of "shifting the narrative" for creative purposes?
- As a first time author, was SW a small cog in the PRH marketing campaign, forced to go along with what her editor suggested would be commercially viable?
In my mind, whether SW is guilty as charged (by the Observer) or not really boils down to 2 things:
A. Did she knowingly fabricate the 2013 CBD diagnosis for literary effect? Did the 2013 diagnosis occur as described in TSP or did PRH suggest to SW that TSP needed spicing up and the narrative needed changing?
B. Did SW embezzle £64K from the Hemmings over a number of years, be completely conscious of what she was doing and subsequently have zero remorse for her actions? Why did she embezzle money from the Hemmings and why did she put her house in the market in Jan 2010 at £395K some 2 years before the creditors of the bankrupt property company took the Walkers to court in February 2012 soon after which a judge ruled they would have 12 months to find the funds and repay the creditors?
For me the French property is a red herring. It was uninhabitable and would have cost a significant amount to run (electricity,water and heating oil in winter) which the Walkers simply couldn't afford let alone pay any property taxes due, lawyer's fees etc etc)
So where do I stand? Well in view of SW's complete inability to admit any guilt or remorse for the alleged £64K embezzlement from the Hemmings and her complete inability to supply a copy of the 2013 CBD diagnosis documented in TSP, I'm afraid that she still has an awful lot of work to do to turn the jury of popular opinion back in her favour and thus at this point in time she if very much guilty as charged by the Observer.
The ball is very much in SW's court imo to prove her innocence.
Edited