Thread 20 : To feel disappointed after reading this in The Observer about the author and her husband from The Salt Path book and film?

[DisappointedReader]

The Observer's original exposé: The real Salt Path: how a blockbuster book and film were ...

First thread: To feel disappointed after reading this in The Observer about the author and her husband from The Salt Path book and film? | Mumsnet

Links to threads 2-16, the other 20 Observer articles and videos to date, Raynor Winn/Sally Walker's statement, our timeline and sources can all be accessed in the OP and first few posts of Thread 17: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5403285-thread-17-to-feel-disappointed-after-reading-this-in-the-observer-about-the-author-and-her-husband-from-the-salt-path-book-and-film?

Thread 18: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5422393-thread-18-to-feel-disappointed-after-reading-this-in-the-observer-about-the-author-and-her-husband-from-the-salt-path-book-and-film?

Thread 19: www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5437058-thread-19-to-feel-disappointed-after-reading-this-in-the-observer-about-the-author-and-her-husband-from-the-salt-path-book-and-film?

New posters joining us in the genuine spirit of our civil discourse are welcome. It would be helpful to get the background from at least some of the Observer exposé items before posting.
To all - Please be extremely cautious when it comes to naming or implicating people and addresses not in the public eye or with no direct connection to the story, and around the understandable health speculations, especially where details are unclear or still emerging. Remember, even Hollywood rabbits attract the odd flea. Please do not engage with drive-by scolders and ploppers who seem to have their own agenda and seek to derail. Avoid @'ing and quoting them as - from experience - this will only encourage them back to the threads. Over five months we have done amazingly well together for 19 very interesting, very serious and very silly threads so far. I can't be here as much as I'd like so all help with keeping our discussion walking along in our usual reasonable and respectful fashion is very welcome.

Keep to the path. No saltiness. May the fudge and cider be with you.

Up and coming:

• Salt Path: A Very British Scandal, Monday 15th December 9pm Sky Documentaries and NOW
• Sunday Papers Live, The Real Salt Path with Chloe Hadjimatheou, Sunday 7th December (see image below for tickets and further details)
• Observer Newsroom: The Real Salt Path Story, Thursday 8th January 2026 6.30-7.30pm. More information and to book via this link observer.co.uk/our-events/the-real-salt-path-story

I wonder if Chloe located a copy of the book after the documentary was pretty much done.

I don’t have Observer to hand but from memory it’s quoted to be about a woman who deliberately (?) defrauds her employer? I think there are many parallels which given all else might be hard to dispute. CH very thorough so might be planning more on it, it does sound like she might have located a copy (?)

That's a really good thought. Let's face it that blasted book is about as accessible as an original Gutenberg Bible, so it wouldn't surprise me.

More may come later if so & you may well be right.

It feels like the podcasts will start to delve deeper, this is just the start of the story for a lot of people. CH seems to know too much about the plot not to have seen the book, unless the relatives filled her in and no one has a copy.

But skip to about 2.15 on the video and watch from there.

I would think, from hearing bits and pieces, it sounds as though Chloe has either found a copy or found someone who has read it thoroughly. I'd guess that Sal will just keep saying 'no I didn't' whenever accused of writing it, however watertight the evidence might seem. Like she's doing with the confessional e mails and letters, the 'I didn't write that' defence.

Although, to be honest, with the amount of doubt that's been thrown on her, I would have thought that the CB prize should remove all reference to her having won. They might not be able to strip her of the prize money, but they could strip her of the kudos of being an 'award winner'.

Parallels aren’t proof though. I mean don’t get me wrong, obviously she DID write it, but legally speaking you need more than that.

similar with illness. It’s murky because how do you prove the lie? Was it a misdiagnosis (wouldn’t be the first) that they’ve run with, did he fake symptoms to con doctors…? Who knows, and you’d have to be very careful not to defame doctors here too.

I don't think anyone as diligent as Chloe would have taken it on hearsay, even from relatives. It would put her/Tortoise/the Observer in the firing line in terms of proof, for a start.

It was Salrays's first book. It isn't beyond imagination that there could be an inscribed copy floating around the family, especially if it was to someone (parents) who couldn't believe they were scamming thieves.

@PinkPanther57 and @nothingtoseehereatall This is the relevant passage in yesterday's paper. I bought a copy from a newsagent in Cornwall:

The Observer discovered that in 2012, five years prior to the publication of The Salt Path, Winn wrote another book. How Not to Dal dy Dir (“hold your ground” in Welsh) is a novel – not a memoir – and was written under another of Sally Walker’s pseudonyms: Izzy Wyn-Thomas. It’s the only title released by Gangani Publishing, a business she and Moth set up when they lived in Wales and it’s likely only about 250 copies were printed.
The story the novel tells is familiar. A young couple move to a small whitewashed farmhouse in Wales, which matches the description of Winn’s house. The protagonist gets a job with a property surveyor and estate agents, where she eventually steals tens of thousands of pounds and, after being arrested, flees to London, where she borrows the money to pay back her employer. But in doing so, she ends up having to forfeit the family home in Wales, by which point she has realised her husband is the only real home she needs.

The novel presents a justification for the protagonist’s actions, which we are told were undertaken for the sake of her husband. Although it’s not clear how he is helped by her.
A different version of this story appears in the pages of The Salt Path ..

(but this was copied and pasted thanks to our fellow conspirator in Australia, @Aussiebornandbred )

She's one of a kind! I wonder whether she's available for birthday parties.

All this and no mention of the CB prize being unjustly awarded!

Oh dear. I am aware that I am beginning to sound a bit one-track minded now. I promise everyone that I am also angry about the illness claims, the pretence about the house repossession and the embezzlement.

The way the article reads @BegazingBrandy, does make it seem that the book has been legally attributed to Salray.

I beg you… please stop!

Oh I see just the band ... but who is their go-go dancer?

I suppose someone with journalistic clout might be able to track back and find out whose name was associated with royalty payments. I've never written under a pen name, but I do know that even with pen names, publishers have to know the real name of the author, because payments have to be made in the legal name of the author (because you can't open a bank account in a pen name). And even if Gangani was owned by Tim and Sal, there still should be a paper trail.

Won't it have a copyright on the inside cover TSP has Copyright@Raynor Winn 2018

Interesting question! But as Raynor Winn was a pen name, I'd guess that it just had Izzy Winn Thomas as copyright holder which won't help with the REAL name of the author, which is what Chloe would need to see.

Penguin website still marketing TSP as "unflinchingly honest, inspiring and life-affirming true story". Or, in the words of SW, "Nothing has changed."

I remember really trying to get my head around this before, the publisher knows the true identity of the author, the paperwork for the ISBN can have a pen name, but it would have to be paid for and receipted in the real name. This still allows the publisher to be the only person who knows the authors true identity. They don't have to reveal the author unless legal action is taken against the author, that was my understanding, it seemed like there was no way to find out.

It is quite possible that the original award had different eligibility criteria than subsequent years, which could have allowed previously self-published authors to be nominated. It wouldn't make things right though because even if so, she won on false pretenses with a heart-wrenching memoir that was a pack of lies. Or maybe TSP was ineligible and CH will reveal more in Observer or podcast. I'm sure we will find out. I don't think she would have included details of HNTDDD in her article but leave readers with unanswered questions if there wasn't more to come IMO.

I don't blame you for that @Vroomfondleswaistcoat . It is a glaring error among an entire field of heffalump lies/prevarications and other assorted deceptions and it is important.

Hilarious especially SW prancing around on stage.

It might well be easier to prove she wrote this & therefore not eligible for prize at least. As someone said royalties etc.

How foolish/odd to write about a crime so close to home you’d rather no one knew about?

Am sure we can find out on award criteria - it would seem odd to me if that something that fundamental changed?