I agree. And I think these vague origins in real events probably enable RW to justify/excuse/fudge (see what I did there!) in her own mind what she’s written.
eg: presuming the account of the loan at 18% interest and with a charge on their house is accurate, RW probably genuinely did feel aggrieved, and that they were being shafted because obviously that seems an extortionate rate. That fact enables her to feel like a victim, that this horrible man lent them money but on terrible terms. She’s conveniently airbrushed out the fact that the loan was to pay back money she has allegedly stolen, and that she would have willingly entered into that agreement to avoid potential prosecution.
I’ve also been thinking back on that interview with Jason Isaacs (mentioned by a pp) where she gave the usual scripted answers and JI basically said ‘I’ll say it because you can’t: you were conned out of everything.”
now of course the timing of that interview was before the Observer story broke, but after the newspaper had contacted RW
multiple times wanting to talk. Was RW hedging her bets, avoiding being the one to go on live TV saying she’d been conned out of everything, knowing that possibly the truth was coming out imminently? I assume by this stage, she must have spoken with lawyers…. Was she advised to avoid certain topics?
however this plays out next, if the Observer account is true (and as it would have been properly researched and checked by lawyers, and RW hasn’t given a satisfactory rebuttal it seems highly likely it is) then I can’t see how RW can worm out of anything. No amount of ‘artistic license’ can justify what she’s done.